Summary for Legal Forum – Surcharge Purchaser Duty (SPD) Remission Case
I am a permanent resident of Australia who recently received a Notice of Investigation from Revenue NSW regarding Surcharge Purchaser Duty (SPD) for a property purchased in January 2023.
Despite residing in Australia since 2017 and accumulating over 1,270 days of presence (including nearly two continuous years from 2020–2021), I fell short of the 200-day physical presence requirement in the 12 months prior to signing the contract by only 18 days. This was due to temporary overseas travel for my spouse’s work and urgent family matters.
My spouse is an Australian citizen, and our children are Australian citizens as well. Our home, school commitments, and financial life have remained firmly based in Australia.
I have submitted a remission request under Section 104ZBA of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW), supported by:
- Proof of prior Australian residency
- Movement records and travel history
- Proof of financial hardship (sold property and downsized to a significantly smaller home)
- Maintenance and repair invoices showing the home was briefly uninhabitable
- Evidence that the ODA 076I declaration form was submitted without my knowledge, incorrectly stating it was signed while I was overseas
- Correspondence from a solicitor who failed to advise me of SPD liability or the 200-day rule
I have submitted a Voluntary Disclosure in the Duties Compliance Portal and included all supporting documentation in good faith.
I am now seeking insights from others who may have experienced similar issues or have knowledge of SPD remission outcomes.
Key questions:
- Has anyone been granted remission despite falling slightly short of the 200-day rule?
- Can solicitor error or professional negligence impact remission or appeal success?
- Should I hire a lawyer now, or wait for Revenue NSW to issue a formal response?
- Is NCAT a viable path for escalation if remission is denied?
Any feedback or shared experiences would be greatly appreciated.
I am a permanent resident of Australia who recently received a Notice of Investigation from Revenue NSW regarding Surcharge Purchaser Duty (SPD) for a property purchased in January 2023.
Despite residing in Australia since 2017 and accumulating over 1,270 days of presence (including nearly two continuous years from 2020–2021), I fell short of the 200-day physical presence requirement in the 12 months prior to signing the contract by only 18 days. This was due to temporary overseas travel for my spouse’s work and urgent family matters.
My spouse is an Australian citizen, and our children are Australian citizens as well. Our home, school commitments, and financial life have remained firmly based in Australia.
I have submitted a remission request under Section 104ZBA of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW), supported by:
- Proof of prior Australian residency
- Movement records and travel history
- Proof of financial hardship (sold property and downsized to a significantly smaller home)
- Maintenance and repair invoices showing the home was briefly uninhabitable
- Evidence that the ODA 076I declaration form was submitted without my knowledge, incorrectly stating it was signed while I was overseas
- Correspondence from a solicitor who failed to advise me of SPD liability or the 200-day rule
I have submitted a Voluntary Disclosure in the Duties Compliance Portal and included all supporting documentation in good faith.
I am now seeking insights from others who may have experienced similar issues or have knowledge of SPD remission outcomes.
Key questions:
- Has anyone been granted remission despite falling slightly short of the 200-day rule?
- Can solicitor error or professional negligence impact remission or appeal success?
- Should I hire a lawyer now, or wait for Revenue NSW to issue a formal response?
- Is NCAT a viable path for escalation if remission is denied?
Any feedback or shared experiences would be greatly appreciated.
