NOT TAXABLE

Dominion, Volume 15, Issue 14, 11 October 1921, Page 9

NOT TAXABLE

GIFTS UNDER £lOOO FULL COURT’S DECISION The Full Court has deckled that a gift of made by the Bank of New Zealand under the Death Duties Act, is not Hable to be assessed for gift duty. The action, brought last week, lay between the bank and th© Commissioner of Stamp Duties, and the object of it was to ascertain whether gifts of under JllOOO should be taxable. Mr. Justice Hosking delivered the judgment of the Court, which stated:— "The answer to the question submitted is, we think, that the gift of JilGO referred to in the case stated is not liable to gift duty under the Death Duties Act, 1909, and its amendments. Section 37 of the principal Act provided that, subjeot to certain exemptions, a dutj» should bn chargeable in respect of every gift within the meaning of the Act. Section 46 provided that the rate of gift duty should bo five per centum of the value of the gift. Section sof the Amendment Act, 1920, repeals so much of section 46 as fixed gift duty at five per centum of the value of the gift, and substituted for it a graduated scale of duties. According to this scale, duty is not payable on any gift unless the value thereof exceeds JJIOOO. The gift in the present case amounts only to XIOO, and prima facie, therefore, duty is not payable in respect of it. "It was contended, however, that the provisions with regard to exemption ©how that this cannot have been the intention of the Legislature. These provisions were contained originally in section 4-1 of the principal Act. They are now contained in section 8 of the Amend ment Act of 1911, as amended by section 102 of the Finance Act, 1915. These provisions do not purport to impose any duty. They merely exempt certain gifts from the duty imposed generally on all gifts by the principal Act, and it is quits impossible to construe them as creating a liability in cases where a duty has not been imposed by the other provisions of the Act. They exempted" gifts which together with all other gifts made at the same time or within one year before or afterwards did not exceed in value the sum of .£lOO9. Since the passing of the Aet of 1920 this exemption has become needless and inoperative, inasmuch as there, is no longer in existence any statutory provision imposing duty on a gift which does not exceed JllOOO. Section 8 of the amending Act of 1911 must therefore be regarded as impliedly repealed, and cannot be read as having been transferred into a taxing section qualifying and limiting the total exemption conferred by the .Act of 1920 on gifts of .£1099 or less. We think, therefore. that the gift in question is not liable to any duty, and that the respondent should pay the costs of the appeal, £7 7g.”