STAMP DUTIES DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 10, 7 October 1920, Page 8

STAMP DUTIES DISPUTE

♦ LITIGATION OVEU ASSESSMENT. A dispute over the correct assessment of certain stamp duties was tho basis of a case heard by the Full Court yesterday, between Raymond Sutherland and Alexander Nathaniel Sutherland, farmers, of Fordcll, appellants, and the Ccmmissioncr of Stamp Duties, respondent. On the bench were Their Honours the Chief Juitico (Sir Robert Stcut), Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice- Cooper, Mr. Juttico Chapman, and Mr. Justice Herdman. Mr. 0. O. Button appeared for the appellants, and the Policitor-Guieral !Mr. W. O. MacGrcgor,, dC.C.) for tho Stamps Commissioner. The facts of the case wero that uider tho will of tho late ' Archibald Sutherland, who died on December 10, 1917, tho residue of the estate concerned was left in trust for his children, with a provision that tho share of each aon was to be twice the share of each daughter. Part of the residue included a farm known as "Craigieloa," and this, with Btock and effects, was to be transferred under tho will to tho two elder sons in satisfaction pro tanto of their shares in the rosidue; thero being a provision that if the value of "Craigielea" exceeded tholr shares in the residue.' the property was not to bo transferred to tho sons until the excess was cither paid by them to tho trustees, or Becurcd on tho farm to tho satisfaction of the trustees Tho farm, excluding farm effects, waß valued at £61,715, the share of each of tho appellants (the two elder sons) in the residuary estate, being £14,707 15s. lOd. By a memorandum of transfer, dated February 2 1920, the trustees of tho deceased transferred the farm to tho ■ appellants in separate and equal shares. The memorandum stated that each appellant had mortgaged to tho trustees his share, of So farm, receiving £16,149 lta. 2d., being tho difference botween the value of his Bhare in the reßlduary estate .of deceased and the value of his share in Craigjelea" This sum was composed of £13.250 Wa' 2d in reßpect of the land, and »28» n respect of tho stock. ... When the memorandum of transfer was presented for stamping, it was assessed by the Commissioner, with ad valorem duty, as a conveyance or a sale in respect of each amount of £13,250 14s. 2d. Tho appellants contended that tho memorandum of transfer, was not liable to duty as a conveyance °f sale. The question submittod for tho opinion of the Bench was, briefly whether the assessment made by tho Commissioner was correct For the appellants, Mr. Hutton submitted that the question to - be coiißidoKd by the Court was whether the transf»r of certain lands came within certain provisos in the Finance Act 1915 (seventh ffiule). He said that tho will made a specificT devise of the farm to the two elder sons, and that it had disclosed all the facts of the case, concealing nothing. The Solicitor-General argued that the transfer wub a conveyance of sale, and that it did not come within the provisos nf tho section referred to. The document had to be tared under section 83 of the Stamp Act, 1908. The Bench reserved its decision.