FULL COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 167, 9 April 1919, Page 11

FULL COURT

LAND TAX PROBLEM

INTERESTING LEGAL POINT

A case removed to the Full Court for argument was-heard yesterday. On theBench were the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout),-Mr. Justice Edwnrds, Mr. Justice Chapman, Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. Justice Hosking. „ ' , r ,_ T . The case was that of James MAair and others as trustees of the will of the late William Pilmey, deceased, against the Commissioner of Taxes. Mr. C. P. Skor'rett, K.C., with him Mr. R, Kenncdv, appeared for the appellants, ami Sir John Snlmond,, K.C., lor the Comniisioner of Taxes. The question submitted for Ihe consideration of the Court was whether land tax was to be assessed on the unimproved value appearing in the valuation roll on March 31, preceding the year of taxation (in this, case March, 1919), and not upon a revisbn of that valuation miulo after .March 31,, but before the assessment of the tax. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, in opening, said in this case the taxation year was from April 1 to March 31; 191(1, and the Order. iu-Council which authorised a general'revaluation was dated September 22, 1017, and directed a revaluation of all tho lands in the valuation district to bo made in 1918. In this case the revaluation was made subsequent to March 31, 1918. The land tax assessment was made oil-September 28, 1918. Mr. .Skerrett then dealt with the statutes, and said that the-first section of the statutes was tho I'inanco Act, 1918, and section S fixed tho taxation year. Tho Finance Act of 'JIG was incorporated with the Land and Income' Tax Act, 1916, and-'section. 3. pro-vided-for the' land tax. '• The tax wan payable on nil'laud possessed by a person on March; 31, preceding the year for which the tax wiis payable. The general policy was-that whoever on'.-March 31 win the owner, even if- he had disposed of the land prior to the assessment _oi tho tax, wiis lia-blo for tho tax, which was payable on tho valuation existing on March 31. Ho quoted section 43 or the Land aiid Income Tax Act, 1310, which fixed'the valuation on which taxation is, the valuation appearing on tho district valuation roll on March 31. There was no section in the Land and Income Tax Act, 1916, incorporating the Land Act. The dates for returns fixed in the Act of 1916 .as linns land was concerned was set out in . sections 7 and 10, and the' assessment was made in section 13. The Commissioner of Taxes might make assessments at different dates, so that some- taxpaye.ra would pay- on one valuation and others on another valuation. The Valuation".or Land Act did not incorporate the LatiO .and Income Tax Act, nor could the valuations bo made for the purposes or the Laud and Income Tax Act. He contended that .the. district valuation roll continued in force subject, to revisions and alterations: His submissions were:—

(1) That the measure'.of value on whisli land tax was, under the statute, (o he based was. on the unimproved value appearing on the district .valuation roll in force on .March 31, and ' (2) That as that valuation roll was altered subsequent to March 31c although before assessment, yet the- valuation so niado was. not retroactive to March-31, 1918,. and therefore the district valuation roll of. March 31, 1918, remained in force. '".''-

Sir John Salmond a,rgued that the c'istrict valuation roll was determined by the' Valuation of Land Act,' and '.the question was whether the district valuation roll was a. periodic or a.permanent roll. Ho contended that it was a periodic roll and not a permanent continuing thing. It was a periodic' 'roll and was defined in section !) of tho Act. The Chief Justice: It had a definite currency until tho revision, and when the revision was made it was a new roll. If the roll is not revised .the old roll stands. . Sir John Salmond said the time, of revision was March 31, and this was shown in section 8.,

Mr. Justice Edwards: Is not section 9 against you?' Sir John Salmond: The revision is made as at March 31. The period of currency was given in section 9. The Chief Justice: The new roll begins some time before it is made,. Sir John Salmond:,Yes. ■ " The Chief Justice: That is the whole point. ■ ■ " Sir John Salmond said the time of valuation was the time at which the valuation was wanted, and not the timo at which the valuation was made. Therevision of the roll whenever made dated bach to' March .31, for that was the lime at which the valuation was wanted, end when* the new roll came into operation. It was the roll that was current, and not the valuation. There;was no time at which the roll was not in force, Whenever a revision-was. made it, dated bade to March 31- as the date' of :the roll in force. His contention was that the,' valuation roll ceased on March 31, 1918, the day appointed for a revision, and the roll so revised—the revised roll-dated back to March 31, 1918. Mr. Skorrett, in reply, said that "during the currency of the roll" meant notiling more than the period during which tho. roll was.in. force. The revision was completed'when, the ValueivGeneral made the revised alterations, and he was bounA by section 12 to give notice of the <'omuiotioii of the-' revision. There- was nothins in the Valuation of Land Act that implied that when the revision was com. pleted it could act retroactively, that is, at March 31. ' . ' 'The Court reserved its decision.