A "HUMANIST" ACT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 784, 6 April 1910, Page 8

A "HUMANIST" ACT.

HOW NEW DEATH'DUTIES #ORK

." ■ A REMARKABLE. CASE.

',: Tfodcr" the'heading "A Government Scandal," the "Otago" Daily Times" prints the. following letter from Mr. A.' N. Barclay, ex-M.P. :—

■ Sir,—An old man died' last month in Kbslyn. He was a poor man, and was ' after by a.few kindly friends and -neighbours. He had, a sort.of little.hut, and.after his death a triflo of money was got for this. ■ Altogether, ■ about £92 was realised "from, his belongings:-: The poor mail, in his gratitude, left £10 •eacb;to three of the friends who had oared for him '• and ! ministered to his wants when* alive, and £25 to another ■ who ; had been specially kind and had done much.-'for him./ There seemed ample to pay these kindly little gifts;, 'yet, in the end, the legatees had. to go short;. ,1 want to tell you, and all the rest of .New Zealand why :it was so. Last year' the Government passed a new Act called the Death Duties Act. It;wa3 an- Act which, was supposed! to. make .-it' lighter on the estates of the small people, and to: enable heavier .duties;,to be collected on death from the estates of the wealthy.; What I am going to tell you now is what has actually occurred in-the first case in Du'nedin -under' the new-Act in which duty has been ..paid. -After -the old man's; death the expenses of his funeral, medical .expenses, and so on, amounted/to £13 ss. 6d.', leaving £78 14s. 6d. .In his will he directed that .his. grave was to be' enclosed,, and a stbne ; put up. This-.was done' at a 'cost of £10, leaving :£68'.145.:6d/ Pre-' vi'ous to-the Death Duties Act of last year, no duty whatever would have been payable, on,: such a pitiful little estate., Nowj, however, a., marvellous change has come over the scene. To the consternation of all.: those concerned, a sum of £7 17s. od. was deminded ' by the Government, as death ■duty under the new Act of last year— :that is, 10 per cent, on £78-14s. 6d. IThis is supposed'to be duty payable 'by.the persons who receive the little' legacies already mentioned, and is supposed to be - calculated on. the amount ..which, these people receive. ;, But it is perfectly evident. that .these legatees cannot -possibly' receive- the amount of the, legacies given' to them by ,tho will, for there has to ,be deducted the amount of'this duty (£7 17s. 5d.), £10 the stone, and about £11 for costs ■and: Expenses of administration, leaving less than £50 to"'be distributed. Even supposing' that'duty was'charged on. the amount available to distribute to. the legatees—that is, to: say, '■ on the £50, the. proper 'sum to charge would toe'. £s.'' . Nevertheless,' the Department,, after .ah appeal to. Wellington, insisted on the .sum of £7 17s. sd. being paid asfduty. ..... (i : ~ '"Now, it seems. io me simply a scandal and, a disgrace that so poor and little an estate-should be absolutely plundered in. this way. It is little less than daylight! robbery. .'I cannot conceive 'that members ofPariiament were aware of;. or,understood, • what • the effect of the-; Act: would be ; . ,If they- were,. I cannot" conceive how they' could possibly' have passed it in its present form. Probably- the majority, of them - knew very little about the. matter, but- the framers arid authors of the measure had the knowledge, and ought .to .have known. ; . They "cannot 'plead the excuse of ignorance or of .overlooking the. mat--ter .through pressure, of business. The 'HonVDr. Findlay and the"! Stamp Commissioner should have known-- well the effect/of the. Act, 'which was. their-'off-, 'spring::- It; is indeed grim irony to reflect that the Ward .Government, which loudly, professed, when, introducing the Act, that it.was going to make it .'easier for the small man-and harder for the big_ ones, ishbuld' as a' first result of their measure in Dunedin have collected from a paltry- estate of, £92 .. a. sum of, .£7 ,17s. 5d., not one penny of whioh would : have been payable under .the old Act, besides; probate, duty, of-£l 10s. and various other charges. ' : . Just as.a matter of curiosity, I furnish' you'-with* the • list' here' ! -of'■• the amount paid to various Government Departments- in connection- with this poor old mans' few' belongings :—V Supreme Court—,.,'- ; •','..- .-•/

i'.' ; ; -'• .'■'' ' ;'''.'.'■■■£ :s.'d. ■ Filing affidavits, etc.' „..'... U 011 0 ''Probate, duty. ...,....„.;..._-: 1 10. 0 Stamp /Office—.;-' '.':"- ;'■• Estate; duty , ; v..-.,;....;„-..L" 7 : 17 ; 5 ./Stamp.; on..declaration... 0. 5 "'.O Deeds'Registraiibhr-7 ".' : '..'■■ Biegisterih'g- declaration '.1..:. 0:18 0 ;• Depositing 0 10 0' ■ Search fee .........;...... 0 2. ft ;v-.'v.: : ;-',/ '..'..-'■"".■ ■'• £ii 13 5' '■;• Dr. Johnson wrote of Oliver Goldsmith:—"Nihi ' tetigit quod non prnavit." Of/the Ward Government it. may be 'said,' "They touched nothing that they did not bungle."—Yours, ete., ':'.'.>''■ ':■■'■.l- ' A: E. 1 BARCLAY. .. ;.P.S.—I ain'taking steps to bring this matter under. the. notice of. the press generally throughout, New Zealand..