LAND TAX APPEAL COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5709, 17 July 1879, Page 3

LAND TAX APPEAL COURT.

Wednesday, July 16. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., E.M,) TOWN BELT RESERVES.

Mr. Chapman appeared on behalf of the Land Tax Department.

Mr. Mark Bird appealed against the assessment at £1854 for 12 acres of land he occupied on the Town Belt, he contending that it was overvalued.

if . Travers appeared on behalf of the aprobaut, and contended at some length that the property should not be assessed at all. It was never intended by the Act that the property shonld .be let for any other than pubdc purposes, and ho quoted largely in support of bis contention. The Corporation, however, had the power to let certain portions of the property for the purpose of obtaining a revenue for improving the lands, and when this object waa attained the power of letting would cease. It was only during the last 18 months that the Corporation had derived any revenue from these lands. People a year and a half ago had a mania for acquiring property, and they took them at rents which must be a considerable source of repentance to them now. His Worship considered that the land when leased should be assessed, and should disallow the appeal. Mr. Bell pointed out that in fixing the assessment it must be borne in mind that the occupiers must be assessed as owners who were under the disability of not being able to sell, and he submitted that this was the basis upon which the assessment must be made. After some further discussion another case was heard, namely, that of J. E. E. Wright, who appealed against the assessment of 28 acres at, £5757. Mr. Brandon appeared in support of the appeal, and called Mr. H. Meek, attorney for the appellant, who deposed that he should value the land for grazing purposes only at £ls per acre. It could not be cultivated, as the public had a right-of-way through it. Another witness, called in support of the assessment, said he should value the land at £IOO per acre. A discussion here took place as to the capital value of the land, Mr. Chapman contending that though the land could not be sold the terra “ capital value” in the Act meant its fee simple supposing it could be sold. Mr. Bell argued the case on the other side for Mr. Brandon, in order to save time, as he had a similar case pending. He quoted from the Act to show that by the definition land was of freehold tenure, and therefore the Town Belt lands could not come under the definition. After some further ■ discussion, the consideration of the subject was postponed, to enable the Magistrate to consider the points raised. Ultimately the Magistrate decided that “ capital value ” meant the value of the land supposing it could be placed in the market, and the appeal was disallowed. David Rainie, 22 acres, £llOO. Appellant considered the property was overrated £4OOO. The assessment was reduced to £2600. Robert Port, 30a. 2r. Ip., assessed at £1575. Reduced to £3050. ; J. and H. Barber, allotment No. 40, £1686. Reduced to £2700. Henry Mace, 25 acres, £SOIB. Assessment sustained. Same appellant, 10 acres, £IOOO. Reduced to £6OO. EECLAIMED LAND. , Mr. Walter Turnbull appealed against the assessment of section 115, reclaimed land, at £25,500, he contending that it was overvalued £B6OO. Mr. Bell appeared in support of the appeal. Mr, Capper deposed to the value of the land, which was purchased from the Corporation in 1875 for and a piece of land given in exchange valued at between £IOOO and £SOOO. There were two brick buildings on the land valued at £14,000, including fittings. The land had feur street frontages, one being to Custom House-quay. He valued it at £15,600. Mr. O'Neill deposed to having made the valuation, which he considered a just one. Mr. Taylor deposed that he had valued the land, and thought its value waa not overstated. Other evidence having been heard, his Worship decided that he could not make any redaction. Mr. Bell then withdrew several other of Mr. Turnbull’s appeals of a similar nature.

Henry Fitzherbert, section 105, Brandonstreet, £IBOO. Mr. Stafford appeared for appellant, and contended that his client was the tenant of the property, and was not liable. The owner was the corporate body of Wellington, which body was liable for the tax. Mr. Chapman thought this question was not one that should have been brought into the Court for decision, inasmuch as there were other modes prescribed by the Act in cases where the wrong person bad been placed on the list. After some further discussion the point was decided against the appellant. Mr, Fitzherbert was

hen heard upon the value of the property, the contention being, as in former oases, that the land should be taxed according to its freehold value. He held the land upon lease, and he contended that the present leasehold value must be construed as being the value of the freehold. His Worship could not uphold this view, and evidence having been taken the assessment was sustained.. town lands. The Hon. O. J. Pharazyn appeared to object to the valuation of two sections, namely, Mrs. Pharazyn’s and Mr. Swainson’s, but his Worship sustained the original valuation. At a later period Mr. Pharazyn appealed against the assessment of several other sections. One valued at £3388 was reduced to £2OOO, aud another rated at £I2OO was reduced to £IOOO. With respect to the property occupied by the appellant, which was rated at £2500, the appeal was not sustained. In a number of cases the appellants were not present, reductions having been made by the department. The Court adjourned at 4 p.m. to Wednesday next.