DOUBLE INCOME TAX.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXXVI, Issue 3565, 27 September 1916, Page 4

DOUBLE INCOME TAX.

AN ENGLISH COMMENT:

The Halifax "Evening Courier" comments as follows on the „ recent speech of" the chairman of the National Bank of Niv Zealand on .the subject of double income tax:—"Wo are hoping after tho war to cultivate and eucourago trado with our Oversea Dominions better than over before. To that end wo must discourage anything like un^ fair taxation or methods'which.might Eavoui 1 oi' chose that? long t igo cost us tho American colonies. et wo are actually, iv tlicso days of a crushing income tax, requiring colonists aud our own people lo pay a double tax in ceitain caseb. The fact does not. ol" course, apply all round; if it did/repeal would bi> instant and decisive. But it applies to thoso industries carried on iv the colonies which havo offices or headquarters in England— tiaders iv i\ool, for inslanco,. and ji> other connnoditios of the Dominions. banks, atid various institutions. Thus, such a firm or company in New Zenland is faced with an income tax of .is 8d in tho li in New Zealand, and of ok. in tho ,C in l^ondon, making Bs Sd in all. This is so obviously unjust and' so seriously imposes a restraint on; tradii at the very time we wish to foster into [--commercial relations that the grievance should be redressed at once. ts <>i)si r\ r tl'it'ihe cliiiiiman of theNntirwi.'il 15-iik of Xcm Zealand says his company v, ould. without demur, pay tax on their Dominion profits inNew Zealand, and tax on' their Loudon profits in London, but, he goes on |to say, ii is surely inequitable—hr* would like to acid iniquitous—that they should have to pay English income tar on profits caned and first taxed in New Zealiuid. So it is. There may be diflimlty in making the exact division suLi^estod by tho chairman but that must not stand iv the way ol' rectifying this, grievous injustice oi a double inco7iic tax.''