GIFT DUTIES.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 October 1921, Page 1

GIFT DUTIES.

WELDING TON, October 8. A few clays age- it test ease was brought on before the Full Court by the Bank of New Zealand in order that all opiuiuii might lie obtained as to whether gil t duty should ha p l id upo.tl gifts -o! less thin CICOO, Lite “test” gift being one of £101) to a retiring memlu-r of the hank “tall. It was suggested during the hearing ot the argument that there was a Han in the Heath Duties Act as at present amended. The CnttrL gave it- judgment this morning : - “Tilt- answer to the <]' cstiou submitted is. we think, tint the gift uf £IOO referred to in tin- case stated is not liable to gift duty under the Death Duties Act, 1000. and its amendments. Section 37 of the principal Act provided that, subject to certain exemptions, a duty should he chargeable in respect of every gill within the meaning of the Act. Section IG provided that tin- rate of gift duty should be ", per centum of the value ol the gilt. | Section 5 ol the Amendment ,\tt. 1-I—o. repeals so mm-h of section IG as fixed gift duty at A per centum of the value • of the gift, and sithsfit tiled for it a graduated scale ol duties. Ace, piling tn this scale duty is not payable on any gift unless tin- value thereof exceeds CIOOO. The gift in th<’ present ea-.-amounts only to L'loo. and prima Lit h‘, j therefore, dittv is not payable in in-

spect of it. It was contended, however, that the provisions' with regard to exemption show that this cannot have been tile intention ol tin- Legislature. I hc.-e provisions wen- contained originally in section 1-1 of the principal Act. 3 hey are - now contained in section 8 n| tb" Amendment Act of 1111 I as amended b;. section 102 of the Finance Act. 1915. These provisions merely exempt certain gifts from Cite duty imposed gcmra'ly on all gifts by the principal Act. and it is quite impossible to construe them as ere 'ting a liability in eas'-s where

a duty ha- not been imposed by the other provisions ol the Art. I he\- exempted gifts which together with all wit-hiu one year belore or a! lerw ards did not exceed in value the sum .-( „|li-r gifts made at tie- £ 10( MI. -•Sin- tie- ]-a- “ittg n| the Act -ml 1020 this exemption has le-emm- m--d----less and inoperative, ina-mn.-h as 111 --* - - is III) longer in existence any statutory provision imposing duty on a gill which diw-s not exceed CIOOO. Section 8 of the amending Act of 1011 must 11 1 • ■ •'• - fore la- regarded as imnlirdly rcpi-aled and cannot be road as having been transformed into a t ixing -ectimi qmdifving and limiting the total cxemptuni conferred by the Act ol PRO on oilts of L'IOOO or less.” Tho costs of the annual. £7 75.. were allowed against respondent, the Commission of Slump Duties Ur A. Gray. K and with Inn Mr (' H. Tavlor anpearwl on behalf ot the Bank of Now /o'llaiul. and tho Solicitor-! u-neral. Air W I'. Mai-Gr-gor. K.C.. for the rospiriident Com-