The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, April 9, 1910. DEATH DUTIES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 824, 9 April 1910, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Saturday, April 9, 1910. DEATH DUTIES.

Mr A. R. Barclay, ex-M.P. for Dunedin North, has forwarded a circular letter to all the newspapers in the Dominion, drawing attention to the manner in which he says the new Death Duties Act operates in relation to small estates, lie instances one case in Dunedin —that of an old man who died last mouth, whose estate when realised only amounted to £92. Funeral expenses, erection of headstone, etc., totalled £23 5s 6d, leaving ,£6B 14s 6d. In his will this man left three amounts of £lO each and one of ,£25 to friends. Mr Barclay points out that previous to the Death Duties Act of last year no duty would have been payable on this estate, but according to the new Act, £7 17s 3d was demanded by the Government, and other expenses paid to Government Departments brought the amount up to ,£ll 13s 3d, and he contends that it is a disgrace that so small an estate should be plundered in this way. He takes the Hon. Dr Findlay, and the Stamp Commissioner to task for framing the Bill, and says that it is grim irony that the Ward Government,who loudly professed, when introducing the Act, that they were going to make it easier for the small men and harder for the big ones, should, as a result of their measure, have collected the above-mentioned amount from such a paltry estate, not one penny of which would have been payable under the old Act. That is one side of the question, and on the face of it it looks as if the Act of last year is not operating as was intended. But there is the other side, and this puts an entirely different complexion on the matter. The Hon. Dr. Findlay, on being interviewed by a newspaper reporter on the subject said; “One of the main purposes the Government sought to achieve in framing the new Death Duties Act was how to substantially relieve all estates under, say, ,£IOOO, which had to go to support the deceased’s dependents, The vast majority of all estates that pay duty are under £■looo, and the relief of these estates determined on by the Government involved a very great prospective loss of revenue. How was this loss to be made up ? It had to be made up from two sources. First by a substantial increase of duty upon the larger estates, and, secondly, by an increase upon estates or the parts of estates passing to strangers. Any comparison of the existing Act with the old Act will show how substantial is the relief given to estates under £IOOO going to families. Under the old Act, the exemption was only £IOO, now it is £SOO, and the old rate of duty on estates over £SOO and under £IOOO has also been reduced. This purpose of relief has also been given effect to in diminishing degree in the smaller estates over £IOOO not going to strangers.” He pointed out that very substantial increases were made in the scale of duty cn the larger estates. In the case cited by Mr Barclay the whole of the bequests are to strangers, and that is the reason any duty is payable. We feel sure that no one cognisant with

the provisions of the Act in question will deny that the measure is a good one, as it provides that the larger estates —the ones best able to afford it —are called upon to pay stamp duty on a higher scale than the smaller ones.