TAX LIABILITY

Hokitika Guardian, 21 October 1933, Page 2

TAX LIABILITY

APPEAL COURT CLAIM FAILS

i(Per Press, Association, Copyright)

WELLINGTON, October 20.

The Appeal Court to-day gave judgment in the case Greenwood and another v Attorney General.- This appeal, heard oil October 0 was from the judgment of Mr Justice Ostler, on an originating summons, submitting a certain question which arose under the, Unemployment Amendment Acts, 1931 and 1932. Appellants, as executors of the estate of the late George Dean Greenwood, -asked, first, for a declaration they were not liable for the payment of the emergency by those Acts, claimed to. be due on November 1,- 1932, and on April 1, 1933, in respect to tile income (other than salary or wages) of deceased during the ; year ended Mrfich 31, 1932 ; Greenwood liawng • died on August 28, 1932 ' u ;

Mr Justice Ostler had answered this question against the appellants, and that answer was upheld by the Cburt -of Appeal this morning. The Court, however, held that the appellants were not liable for four instalments of tax chained to he due on the first, days .of the months of May, August and November, 1933, and February, 1934, and varied the judgment of the Court below,.accordingly. As appeallaiits liad been partly successful,;.they were awarded costs. As Ho this, the Chief Justice (Sir Michael .Myers)',/in' allowing 15 said that leading-counsel had appeared in 'the caSej but he not only , did not condescend ,fo. address the Court, but had not even explained his omission to do so. jSuch conduct was not respectful to the Bench, and not consistent 'with the dignity of the Bar. The amount of costs awarded was 'affected by tills fact. WELLINGTON COUNCIL CASE. In th,e Wellington City Council v. I 'Laming',' the Court of Appeal delivered judgment in this action, this morning, allowing the appeal of the Wellington City Council. ' The Court held that no reasonable excuse had been established by the respondent for his noncompliance with the peremptory requirements of Section 353 of the Municipal Corporation's Act 1920 and therefore his action could not-be sustained. Costs on the lower scale were allowed to appellant.