CLAM FOR DUTY.

Hokitika Guardian, 13 July 1923, Page 1

CLAM FOR DUTY.

CASK IX A I’PKA I. COURT. AVKI.I.I.XCTOX. July 11. The Court of Appeal heard aroiiinoiit this 11 :<irni 11 >£ in jin- case ol’ the Coinmisiolier of Taxes v. ’J'lnli] (Dunedin). Tim fans U'imv that ahoui February Kith, 192!, Tmlil. nut uf Jiis regard towards (lie proposed lransfereos. signed transfers by way of a y;ift of a thousand shares of (lie nominal value of £IOOO in Todd Bros., Limited. Tim transfers worn lodged for slumpin'' on Unlirnary I7lli. lltdi. )> ll l at that date tliny had not liana registered in the hool's of Todd Bros., Limited, or had hoon delivered to i In- transferees. After Mime (lisi-iisssiiiii uilh the Commissioner of Stamps, the transfnrs were withdrawn. Inii on April 7th., 1021. they wore returned and duly stamped as if (lie shares were of the value of £ll Nil). Then, on )•'<-l>ruufy 271 h. 1022. Todd made a further oift. of to one llyile, and the Commissioner of Stamps claimed duty at the rate of "> per cent. (it t!a> iota,l value of both t'ifts as ho contended that i hey had hoon made within a period of one year and that tin limit of the amount of pjlts Iree of dutv within the period of one year was CiOi.'O.

in the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice. Sir Robert Stout, decided against the Commissioner. Mr MacGrot'or. Solicitor-General, who npjieared for the Commissioner, said tin l point for consideration id the Court was whether the transfer of shares oi February ltith.. 1021. was complete on that date or was not complete until after April 7th., 1921. He contended that as the transfers were not, delivered to the transferees until after April 7th. 1021. then transfer was not complete until after that date. Arpimeiil is proceeding.

The Hon J. MaeGrej'or. for Todd, said that the ease was most unfairly stated by the Commissioner of Stamps. In the ease were several incorrect statements of facts. He admitted, however, that lie was bound by the tacts as stated. On the question of law he, contended that delivery of transfer of shares to the transferee was not necessary in order to complete the transfer. In the present ease the transferees had sinned the transfer, thus showing that they accepted the transfers. This cave the transferees a clear equitable title on Fbrunry 10th. 1021. and two t'ifts of £IOO9 each had not. therefore been made within the period of one year. Xo slump duty. was. therefore payable. The Court reserved its decision.