International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Sponsored

Australian court rules that power stations are not land or fixtures

Sponsored by

Sponsored_Firms_piper.png
opera-house-3381786.jpg

Adam Smith of DLA Piper Australia dissects the impact of the recent case Meridian Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue.

The New South Wales (NSW) Supreme Court has held that three hydroelectric power stations were not ‘interests in land’ for NSW landholder duty purposes. Accordingly, the acquisition of a company that leased the land on which the power stations were located was not subject to landholder duty.

In 2018, Meridian Energy Australia Pty Ltd (Meridian) acquired 100% of the shares in GSP Energy Pty Ltd (GSP) for approximately AUD 160 million ($108 million). At the time of the acquisition, GSP was the operator of the power stations and lessee of the land on which the power stations were situated. GSP had previously been vested with the power stations, leases, and other related assets of Green State Power Pty Ltd, pursuant to a statutory vesting order in 2014. Green State Power Pty Ltd had originally obtained the same rights, assets and liabilities under a statutory vesting order made in 2013.

The characterisation of the vesting orders and Meridian’s interest in the power stations was critical to the assessment of whether GSP was a landholder under the NSW Duties Act of 1997. Meridian argued that its right to use the power stations derived from its ownership of the power stations pursuant to the vesting orders (rather than from the leases). The NSW Chief Commissioner argued that the power stations were fixtures, being part of the leased land, causing GSP to be a landholder and Meridian’s acquisition to be subject to landholder duty of circa AUD 8 million.

NSW Supreme Court ruling

In the case Meridian Energy Australia Pty Ltd v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2022] (NSWSC 1074), the Court held that the power stations were innominate sui generis property interest (property in a class of its own). Hence, they were to be held in gross, and therefore they were neither an interest in land nor goods for landholder duty purposes.

The Court focused on the 2013 vesting order and found that, due to the way in which the vesting order was framed, including that the power station dams were not listed under the heading of real property or leaseholder property in a schedule to the vesting order, but instead were listed as a separate “thing” (being a catch-all description of tangible property), there was a statutory severance of the power stations from the land. This unique interest was not an interest in land, and the subsequent 2014 vesting order did not alter the character of this interest. It was further held that the power stations did not become goods simply because the 2013 vesting order caused them to be statutorily severed from the land.

This case serves as a timely reminder that, when seeking to determine the character of an interest for tax and duty purposes, it is always necessary to check the underlying source of the taxpayer’s rights. The complex web of statute that can apply to critical infrastructure and the privatisation of state assets may cause an interest to be created that is so unique, it falls outside of the traditional categories of land, fixtures, or goods.

 


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Two months since EU political agreement on pillar two and few member states have made progress on new national laws, but the arrival of OECD technical guidance should quicken the pace. Ralph Cunningham reports.
It’s one of the great ironies of recent history that a populist Republican may have helped make international tax policy more progressive.
Lawmakers have up to 120 days to decide the future of Brazil’s unique transfer pricing rules, but many taxpayers are wary of radical change.
Shell reports profits of £32.2 billion, prompting calls for higher taxes on energy companies, while the IMF warns Australia to raise taxes to sustain public spending.
Governments now have the final OECD guidance on how to implement the 15% global minimum corporate tax rate.
The Indian company, which is contesting the bill, has a family connection to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – whose government has just been hit by a tax scandal.
Developments included calls for tax reform in Malaysia and the US, concerns about the level of the VAT threshold in the UK, Ukraine’s preparations for EU accession, and more.
A steady stream of countries has announced steps towards implementing pillar two, but Korea has got there first. Ralph Cunningham finds out what tax executives should do next.
The BEPS Monitoring Group has found a rare point of agreement with business bodies advocating an EU-wide one-stop-shop for compliance under BEFIT.
Former PwC partner Peter-John Collins has been banned from serving as a tax agent in Australia, while Brazil reports its best-ever year of tax collection on record.