Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

REBUKE BY CHIEF JUSTICE

Stamp Duty Official

VALUATION OF HOTEL

LICENCE

‘‘Not long ago, indeed it was only in May of this year, I had occasion to condemn the course taken by the Commissioner ot’ Stamp Duties in a particular case. I very much regret that his conduct in this case also calls for severe condemnation,” said the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers), in delivering reserved judgment in favour of Louisa Maria Barrett, Wellington, who had appealed against the valuation by. the Commissioner of Stamp Duties; of the licence of the Manchester Hotel, Feilding, at £BOOO for death duties.

Mrs. Barrett,.‘administratrix of. the estate of David I’rideatix Barrett, deceased hotel-keeper, made returns under the Death Duties Act showing the Government valuation of the hotel and land as £-1500 and assessed the licence and goodwill at £3OOO. Heviewing evidence on the assessment, his Honour said tliat obviously the commissioner had adopted a wrong method of valuing the licence. An expert agent had later valued it for the department at £<sooo, but no re-assess-ment bad been made. The Chief Justice continued: ‘‘l asked him why he did not make a re-assessment, and his reply,- to my astonishment, was that he did not.conceive it his duty to do so. I then asked him a question and bis answer explained why he did not do what I consider was his plain duty ; the answer was that he expected to have negotiations for a , settlement, and meantime he retained his assessment of £.BOOO. That is.not the way in which, in my oplaloii, a high officer of a revenue department should conduct the business of the department. To say the least, it is not fair. “I repeat that the observations that I have considered fnyself called upon to make are made in what I conceive to be a strict sense of duty, and they are made with great regret and pain,” concluded, his Honour.

The Court reduced the. assessment Yo £-1600. Mr. D. Perry appeared for appellant and Mr. P. B. Broad for the Commissioner of Stamp Duties.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19420828.2.6

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 283, 28 August 1942, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
342

REBUKE BY CHIEF JUSTICE Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 283, 28 August 1942, Page 3

REBUKE BY CHIEF JUSTICE Dominion, Volume 35, Issue 283, 28 August 1942, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert