TAX TAKES 70 PERCENT.

Chronicle (Levin), 11 September 1947, Page 3

TAX TAKES 70 PERCENT.

PresQ Association J

ALMOST CONFISCATION STATES MEMBER IN HOUSE

(Pzr

wriL/ijiiNU-iuiN, eept. jlu. In the House of Representativea, Mr. M. Moolian (Petone) ehairmhn of the Publie Petitions A to L Committee, said the committee had no recommendation to make on the petition of Mr. S. R. Gavvith, of Masterton, who sought relief of estate and succession duties paid by him as executor and trustee of tlie estate of the late Mr. Henry Hawson Smith. Mr. R. G. Gerard (Ashburton) said there was not unanimity on the decision reached by the committee. JDeceased's estate totalled £57,112 of which £41,(347 or 70 per cent. went in taxation. Deceased, a banker, lived most of his life in New Zealand ana niade his money here. He made bequests to Dr. Bamado's home, the Aclelaide Children 's Home and the Masterton Public Hospital. While taxation at the rate of 70 ]/er cent. was levied m New "Zealand, only 04 per cent. was levied in England on estates of this kind. He said that the Govcrnment should reconsider taxation in relation to succession duty. A suitable list ot charitablo institutions to which succession duty would not apply should be compiled. Mr. G. II. Mackley (Wairarapa) said that that enormous taxation amounted almost to confiscation. ' Every reasonably fair-minded person would apprecrate how unequal taxati.oii. was of tlns kind aud how unequal the decision made by the Miuister of Finance was m this case.-:. Mr. Nash said deceased 's estate was valued at £57,000 in New Zealand and anotlier £17,000 in Australia and duty was assessed on the total valuc of tlie estate. The 70 per cent was the rate which applied to the total estate. A sum of £100 was left .to the Masterton Hospital in the eountrv where deceased made his money and £.i0,000 to the Adelaide Children \s Homc." Mr. J. T. Watts (St..Albans) : Surcly a raan has the right to do what he likes with his money? Mr. Nash said that while a man had the right to bequeath his money as he wished, there was no reason why, through the remissiqn of succession duty, the New Zealand taxpaycrs

should, in effect, have to pay £10,000 to the maintenan^e of a children 's hospital in Adelaide. He doubted whether, if a siruilar bequest were made from an Australian estate to a New Zealand charity, it would come to this country tax free. Mention had been made of a remission of the tax on a bequest to the Methodist missions in the Solomon Islands but in that the bequest was to a New Zealand organisation to replace its schools, churches and other proporty which were wiped out during the war and the circumstances were quite different from those of the present case. , The committee 's report was adopted.