This matter concerned the Commissioner’s decision to claw back the First Home Owner Grant ($7000) and Bonus ($3000) initially given to the applicant and to impose a penalty ($1000) on the applicant.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner’s decision on the basis that the applicant failed to satisfy the residence requirement in section 12 of the First Home Owner Grant Act 2000. In particular, the applicant failed to occupy the property as his principal place of residence for the required minimum period.
The evidence before the Tribunal was that the applicant purchased the property with the intention of using it as an investment property. Nevertheless, he carried out some “ritual of occupancy” for six months because he believed in his mind that that was necessary to qualify for the grant. The applicant returned to the property only on some nights to sleep there but did his other daily activities such as washing his clothes, ablution and cooking at another property. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal held that the nature of his occupancy was something less than occupancy of the property as his principal place of residence.
In relation to the imposition of the penalty, the Tribunal reasoned that it was justified in order to deter applications that are made contrary to the grant’s advertised conditions.
