FULL COURT CASF.

Hokitika Guardian, 5 October 1921, Page 2

FULL COURT CASF.

•.I-.ACI- xn CRESS association!

Mll.i INGTON. C-t-'-' 1 The Foil Court was occupied with the consideration of ™ appeal Bank of New /calami against th assessment of the amount of A»i> payable l.y a. hank on the gift of Lit made by the bank to one of its i‘'tiling servants. The hank contended that t.ie g' was fre v . from duty while the (»m----inissioiier argued that it "as liable to a duty of 10 per cent. The case was of interest, as many other similar gifts are involved Vt the bearing. Sir .1. 1' indhis. K. c anpcai-cd for the Bank of New /calami. said that the hank was not seekino to evade the payment of taxntion. The question for the determination of the Court was as to the meaning of the words, “the gifttint, sof the Death Duties Amendment Act. I—o. That section, he said showed that the legislature was adoptin' l ' a new scheme of taxing gifts and that each gift stood on its »wn. and was quite independent of all o hor I'ifts. whether made within 1,nontlis or tin- p:irtirulnr -lit assessed or not. . . Ml . McGregor for the Commissioner of" Stamp Duties said that it was quite true that, on its face, the ament - in,, statute of 1020 did appear to tax only single gifts over £IOOO in »momt but he contended that, read m ,Hl, ‘ jniu-tioii with prior Acts, it was dear that all gifts made within 12 months must bo taken into account and if the total value, as in this ease, exceeded CIOOO, then a gift of even less than 01000 was liable to taxation at the rate provided in the act. It was indicated by Mr McGregor that if the Court’s decision was m favour of appellant, that amending legislation would be necessary. The Court reserved its decision.

DECISION RESERVED. WELLINGTON. October 4. The Full Court concluded the hear inc of argument ill the ease of Anson versus the Commissioner of Taxes. Mr All-Gregor, solicitor-general, stated the business/ i««i*ried on by the appellant was simply that of an ordinary New Zealand sheep station. The appellant had. he said, adopted a standard value for his stock and had treated it in the same way as a merchant treated hist stc,-'.- in trade and bv so doing he had in mist yours obtained deductions from ineonie t'N. The contention of the Uniiimis.sii.-ner of Taxes that the difference between the standard value and the value at which Stock was finally sold, was assessable for the purposes of income tax, was, he maintained, correct.

After Air Cook replied, the Court reserved its decision.