PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2161, 28 January 1881, Page 2

PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT.

Mosers George Hart, John Anderson, and_ J. P. Jameson, hold their second sitting yesterday as the Board of Reviewers under the Property Assessment Act for tho borough of Christchurch. There wore three or four objections heard against the assessments of the funds of the building and investment societies. Mr Oowlishaw, who appeared for two societies, claimed exemption for the societies from tho tax on the ground that they wore not companies within the meaning given in the interpretation clauses of the Act —namely, they were not formed wholly or mainly for the purposes of gain, but were within the moaning of tho Building Societies Aot, mutual benefit associations, which the Government looked upon as exempted from stamp duties. He maintained that members having the right to withdraw at any time placed them in a different position to that of shareholders in joint stock or other companies. He claimed that both realised and unrealised members having the power under the rules to withdraw at any time, they were the persons who, if any one was liable, ought to bo taxed, and then, in many oases, they being of tho poorer and industrious class, would be amongst those whom the Government intended to exclude by tho £SOO exemption. Mr Izard, who appeared with Mr E. C. Latter, the deputy commissioner, contended that tho societies were companies in which the profits were divisible amongst the shareholders, and as such came under the Act; further, that members could only withdraw under certain restrictions. After a considerable amount of legal argument, tho chairman of tho Board of Reviewers was understood to say, that although there might be a wish to see the societies exempted, and tho Government had assisted in their encouragement by relieving them of stamp duties, that they came within tho designation of the word_ “company,” The societies had complied with the Act in appointing public officers, and as these societies received as trustees, and as such hold in charge, tho accumulated capital of shareholders, they were apparently liable in respect of the fax. Section 19 referred to tho position of trustees. If the shareholders, for whom exemptions was now claimed, had not been liable as a company, the amounts of their shares ought to have been included in their personal returns. The instances given of shareholders having included their shares in such personal returns were, the board considered, exceptional. The amounts duo to unrealised shareholders, which some of the societies claimed to insert in their returns of liabilities as reducing tho assets were disallowed. The assessments put upon their property by societies wore in every other instance taken as returned by them.