DECISION UNDER THE PROPERTY TAX ACT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 194, 16 August 1881, Page 4

DECISION UNDER THE PROPERTY TAX ACT.

At Wellington the other day in the case of Crombie, Deputy Property Tax Commissioner v. W. E. Greatrex, His Honor Mr Justice Richmond delivered judgment as follows : — This was an appeal from the decision of the Resident Magistrate, Wellington District, upon an information under the Property Assessment Act Amendment Act, 1880, charging the defendant that, he being a person liable to taxation under the Property Assessment Act, 1879, and the Property Assessment Act Amendment Act, 1880, had wilfully failed, and neglected to furnish a statement of his property, within the prescribed time. The case stated that certain admissions were made by the defendant. It was admitted that the defendant and another carried on business as wholesale manufacturers of saddlery, and also a general wholesale saddlery business at Walsall in England, under the style of Charles Greyer

and Son, and that the same partners under the same style carried on business at Wellington, and that the Walsall house consigned goods to the branch in Wellington for sale there. It appeared that the firm had a large amount of property in the colony. . The defendant "claimed to deduct from the property, firstly, debts due by the firm within the colony ; and, secondly, the sum which upon the books kept by the Wellington branch appeared to the debit of the New Zealand branch, and to credit of the English branch, as payable to the English branch, for the goods consigned to the New Zealand branch. It did not appear that the shares of the partners in the English and in the New Zealand were different, and in his view this was immaterial. In any case, he would not assume that the shares were different. The whole question was whether the sum debited to the New Zealand branch, and credited to the English branch, in the books in Wellington, could be deducted as a debt due by the firm. He had carefully considered Mr Brandon's argument and the Acts. The Acts threw exceedingly little light upon the subject. On the whole, he concluded that it was impossible to treat this debit as a debt due by the firm. In his opinion it was simply a device of book-keeping, that any sum was due by the New Zealand branch. The decision below was right, and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.