SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1716, 5 April 1913, Page 14

SUPREME COURT.

THE DEATH DUTIES ACT, 1909. BIG SUM INVOLVED. ESTATE OP THE LATE E, J. ItIDDI-FOK-D, Over .£IOO,OOO lias been claimed by the Crown as gift and death duty on the estate of tlie late E. J. Biddiford. This Became apparent from tho remarks made by counsel in the Supreme Court yesterday in a case stated by tho Commissioner of Stamps, under Section GO of tlie Death Duties Act, 1909, and concerning the will of the late Edward Joshua Kiddiford, who died on May 2, 1911. On account of the importanco of the issue, the caso had been selected for a I'ull Bench of tho Supreme Court. It came .on yesterday beforo tho | Chief Justice (Sir Ilobert Stout), Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Cooper, and Mr. Justico Chapman. The appellants were Eleanor Caroline Riddifoixl, Edward Vivian I'iddiford, Daniel Henry Strother Kiddiford, Eric Leslie Itiddil'ord, and Oliver Asliby Bunny, the executors of the will of Edward Joslftta Kiddiford, deceased. The respondent was th?, Commissioner of Stamps. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., .with Mr. M. Myers, appeared for tho appellants, while the Attorney-General (tlie Hon. A. L. Hordman), with Mr. 11. H. Ostler, of tho Crown Law Office, appeared for tho Commissioner of Stamps. According t<? the statements of the Commissioner of' Stamps, Edward Joshua Kiddiford had from his youth been engaged in-tho business of sheepfarming, and was a specially experienced and highly successful sheepfarmcr. On Juno 6, 1907, tho late Mr. Kiddiford (being then of the ago of G5 years) oxecnted a deed of partMsrship with his four sons—Edward Vivian Kiddiford, Daniel Henry Strother Kiddiford, Eric Leslie Kiddii'ordj and Lionel Edward Riddiford (since deceased), Tho capital of this partnership consisted of certain lands, vested in the late Mr. Kiddiford, together with the live' stock depasturing thereon. Tho deed and ■an agreement setting out the shares were subsequently completed by all parties, and in the month of September, 1910, tho Commissioner of Stamps assessed the deed of • partnorsip (under- the Stamp Acts Amendment Act, 1891, and the Stamp Acts Amendment Act; 1895) as a deed of gift executed by the late Mr. Kiddiford in favour of his sons in respect of the land and oilu:r property, constituting the capital of tho partnership. This deed of gift duty eo assessed amounted to .£12,238 12s. 7d., and it was paid by the late Mr. Kiddiford to tho Commissioner of Stamps on Deoombcr 16, 1910. On that date, however, Str. Kiddiford's solicitors wrote to the Commissioner stating that tho duty was paid under protest.' But in another lettor three days later, they intimated tlialt thoy did not intend to lodge nn appeal against the assessment.-. Nevertheless, thoy si till maintained that tho assessment of gift duty was wholly erroneous. Nothing further occurred in the matter until the death of Mr. Kiddiford on May 2, 1911. Tlie Commissioner of Stamps then came to assess the estalto of tho decreased for dsatli duty' under the Death Duties, Act, 1909.- In doing so, lie included in tho dutiable estate, the whole of tho land and Other property, which -was included in the deed of partnership. Ho assessed this for estate duty (according to Section' 5 of the Act), taking tho value of tho land as «C25G,3G3 (value at time of death of deceased), and the value of r tho stcck as . ,£72,220 (valuo at date of execution of the deed of partnership). Ho also assessed tho estate for succession duty (undor Section 15 of tlio'Act), in respect of the whole of the land, talcing tho yaluo as at tho tiino of tho death of deceased. Prom tho total amount of doath duty thus computed, the Commissioner' deducted .£12,238 12s. 7d.—(the .amount of deed of gift .duty paid by the lato Mr. Kiddiford in December, 1910. The appellants,' being 'dissatisfied in point-of law with tho assessment, required the Commissioner, of Stamps to state ,a case for the opinion. of. the; Supreme Court, under Section GO of the ffi>ath Duties Act, 1909. In this way the case came beforo tho Full Bench for argument. The appellants contended that no estate dnty 'or succession .'duty was payable in respect of tho property included ,in. tho deed of partnership. In the alternative it was contended that estate duty only, and not succession- dutv, was payable in respect of this pronerty, and that such duty was assessable only on tho value of the property at tho dato of tho deed of partnership, and not on its value alt tlie death of' tho deceased. 'The questions submitted to the Court wero':— ; (1) Whether estate duty is payable m respect of 'the- property included in the deed'of partnership? (2) Whether .such estate duty, if payable, should be assessed on the value of tho property, at the date of the deed, or on its value at tlie death of deceased? (3) Whether succession dulty is payable. in respect of the property included in deed? ■ (4) Whether such succession duty, if payable, should be assessed on the value of the property at the date of the deed, or on its valuo at tho death of the deceased ? The case was stated without prejudice to the right of the Commissioner of otamps to assess any part of the property included in the deed of partnership tor estate duty or succession duty on any ground other than its inclusion in tho deed of partnership. In his opening remarks vesterday, Mr Skerrett mentioned that the amount involved was represented by tho difference between tho sum of ,£89,24 a (claimed by tho Crown) and tho sum of ,-051,000 (as r ,f™ 2? n Ed V th ' e , "Prints). Tho sum of ■£89,240, referred to, was exclusive of tlie amount of ,£12,238 previously paid in December, 1910. Mr. Skerrett's address was still in progress at 4.30 p.m., when the Court adjourned until -10.30 a.m. on Monday