He declared a gifted car at $1,000 after telling Transport for NSW it was worth $60,000. He asked for mercy and got nothing.
Your client declares his gifted car at $1,000 for duty. But he had already told Transport for NSW it was worth $60,000.
He asks for mercy - waive the duty, or at least remit the interest. He gets nothing.
Tang v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2026] NSWCATAD 183 - a quiet case with a loud lesson on how narrow remission is.
What happened
Motor vehicle registration duty falls on a vehicle’s dutiable value - under s 266 of the Duties Act 1997 (NSW), the greater of what you paid or its market value. A gift does not help: nil consideration means market value governs.
Mr Tang declared $1,000 and paid $30. But the Notice of Disposal recorded $60,000. Duty was assessed on that value - about $2,100, plus $118 interest - and he conceded it was payable.
His fallback pleas failed: no relief for unfairness [31]-[33], no estoppel from official advice [36], and hardship is for the Hardship Review Board [39].
The two interest rates
Interest on a tax default comes in two parts, and each is remitted on a different test (ss 21-22 and 25, Taxation Administration Act 1996 (NSW)).
The market rate is pure compensation - it covers the State for being paid late. Waiving it would let tax be paid at a discount, so it is remitted only “rarely, if ever”: you essentially must show the Commissioner contributed to the default [51], [53].
The premium rate is different - it is a penalty [52]. It is less restrictive, and turns on the taxpayer’s culpability such as reasonable care [53]-[55].
Over both sits s 25. The Court of Appeal calls it a broad discretion [56]-[57] - but once the Chief Commissioner issues guidelines, interest “must be remitted only in accordance with the guidelines” [47]. The TAA 001 Guidelines (1 July 2025) allow it only in a short, closed list: up to 25% for narrow events (postal delays, illness or death of key staff, industrial action) and up to 100% for exceptional ones (a Revenue NSW error, a system failure, a natural disaster) [62].
Why Tang got nothing
He cleared neither path. None of the Guidelines circumstances applied [63]. The underlying tests led to the same place: nothing showed the Commissioner contributed to the default, so the market rate held [65]. On the premium rate, his own document sank him.
The Notice of Disposal showed a value he knew - $60,000 - yet he returned duty on $1,000. Not dishonest, as he had disclosed the real figure, but a mistake in returning duty on a different amount. Declaring a different amount led to a failure to take reasonable care [67]-[68]. No reasonable care, no relief.
Remission is not a fairness safety net. It is a narrow, largely mechanical concession - “I made a mistake”, “I was told the wrong thing”, “I cannot afford it” are nowhere on the list. Get the dutiable value right the first time; afterwards, neither fairness nor remission will save you.
General information only. This note was accurate when written. The law may have changed since and the note is not updated. It is not legal or tax advice, does not take account of your circumstances and must not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on your own matter. If the issue is live for you or your client, email arda@nortonquaytaxlaw.com.au for advice on the current position.