Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CHIEF JUSTICE’S CRITICISM

METHOD OF ASSESSING DEATH DUTIES (Special) WELLINGTON, Sept. 2. The procedure of the Commissioner of Stamp Duties in the assessment of the value of the licence of the Manchester Hotel, Feilding, for the purpose of death duties, was criticized in p judgment given in Wellington by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers. The case was one in which Mrs Louisa Maria Barrett, of Wellington, widow of the late David Prideaux Barrett, retired hotelkeeper, and administratrix of his estate, appealed against an assessment made by the commissioner. Mr Perry appeared for the appellant, and Mr Broad for the respondent. Mr Barrett died in February 1940. He was the owner of the Manchester Hotel. In her returns under the Death Duties Act, the appellant claimed that the value of the licence and goodwill was £3OOO. For the purpose of assessing death duty, the commissioner determined that the value was £BOOO. He assessed death duties accordingly, and the appellant’s objection was disallowed. His Honour said that, in a previous case, heard in May last, he had occasion to condemn the course taken by the present respondent. “I very much regret that his conduct in this case also calls for severe condemnation,” he continued. “Mr Broad, at the commencement of the case, very properly admitted that it was impossible for him to ask the Court to assess the value of the licence of the Manchester Hotel at a higher amount than £5OOO. EXPERT’S ESTIMATE OF £5OOO “I do not say that the respondent may not have been justified in the first place in making his assessment, but obviously it was a wrong method of valuing a licence. In August 1941 he obtained a valuation from an agent, Mr Baker, who is put forward, and rightly so, as an expert in this class of business, and that expert reported to the commisisoner that he valued the licence at £5OOO. It would have been quite competent for the commissioner to obtain other valuations had he thought fit; but he did not. I asked him why, then, did he not in August 1941 reduce his assessment to £5OOO, and inform the appellant accordingly. His reply, to my astonishment, was that he did not conceive it to be his duty to do sp. “I then asked him a question, and his answer. explains why he did not do what I consider was his plain duty in August 1941. It was that he expected to have negotiations for a settlement, and meantime he retained his assessment at £BOOO. That is not the way in which, in my opinion, a high officer of a revenue department should conduct the business of the department. To say the least, it is not fair.” The appeal was allowed. The commissioner’s assessment was reduced from £BOOO to £4600. Costs were allowed against the respondent.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19420903.2.22

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Southland Times, Issue 24839, 3 September 1942, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
473

CHIEF JUSTICE’S CRITICISM Southland Times, Issue 24839, 3 September 1942, Page 4

CHIEF JUSTICE’S CRITICISM Southland Times, Issue 24839, 3 September 1942, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert