RATING DIFFICULTIES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVI, Issue 4895, 26 October 1925, Page 3

RATING DIFFICULTIES.

AMENDMENT OF THE ACT. COUNTY COUNCILS’ OPINIONS. “That the Rating Act, 1908, be amended so that .the person whose name appears in the occupier column on the valuation roll on March 31 in each year should be primarily liable for,the ensuing yeaPs rates, notwithstanding that he may subsequently give notice before the rates become payable,” was a remit from the Waipa County Council unanimously decided on at the County Councils’ conference held in Hamilton on Thursday last. It was pointed out that for .the purpose of land taxation .the occupier whose name was on the roll on March 31 was primarily liable, and there did not seem to be any reason why, the liability under the Rating Act should not be the same. As the law stood at present considerable delay occurred annually .in the collection of rates when part sales were made in counties where .the system of rating on the capital value was in force. The local bc-dy, having no authority to apportion the valuation, was at the mercy of the Valuation Department’s officers, who might not supply the divisional values until the following year. In the meantime rates could not be demanded from either the vendor for the residue or the purchaser for the part purchased.

It was also resolved that the Rating Act be amended so that the lessor should not be compelled to give notice of the expiration of his lease to relieve himself of liability for rates. In submitting to the conference a remit, dealing with the date for payment of any special, rate, the Waipa County representatives stated that in their area, where road boards and part of other counties had been merged, it had been found that the special rates had been made payable on various dates between August 1 and September 30 in each year. As the general rate was usually made payable on August 1 and the special rat at fllater date, the first named demandhad either to be held over or separate demands made out.» This, of course, entailed extra office supervision, as well as being unsatisfactory to those ratepayers who preferred to receive one account for their annual rates.