Mr X’s election was well outside that so the District Inspector of the local office had no option but to do as he did and reject the application for an election and forward the papers to the Head Office specialists. Their expressed view was that Mr X had not been prevented (their emphasis) from making a timely election by some factor such as illness and that his late election should be refused. After Mr X has complained to the Adjudicator, the Head Office specialists considered the matter again on 9 February.

With the help of entire system of Conveyancing a person is able to get the very best as well as required things as per their requirement and need of the process by Port Adelaide Conveyancer. This process turns to be very time saving as well as accurate when it comes to handling of various different types of matters of Conveyancing. They amplified their view saying that waiting for a formal agreed valuation in order to decide with hindsight whether to make an election did not satisfy the criteria for an extension of the time limit.

As he had not sought to make an election until October 1993 he had been unacceptably late. The Head Office specialists subsequently considered matters again on 15 April. They then expanded upon their earlier explanations referring to the criteria used to consider late elections, and specifically to the Parliamentary written answer of 10 December 1985.

The people working here are efficient enough to bring solutions for your various needs very easily as well as efficiently. Everything gets required results with complete ease as well as accuracy. Within the Parliamentary written answer is the statement that ‘there would be a presumption in favour of admitting a late claim where there has been a relevant error on the part of the Inland Revenue. There is no indication that specific consideration was given to that point in the Head Office memorandum of 7 January and 9 February 1994.