LAND AND INCOME ASSESSMENT BILL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 2 October 1907, Page 2

LAND AND INCOME ASSESSMENT BILL.

I'KUGKESS IN TllE HOUSE. *' Per Press Association. ; Wellington, Lu»l Nighi. In committee uii the Land and Income I Assessment Bill IM< afternoon the ire- ]> irier stilted he had looked into the point h raised by Jlr. lUuiau, that there was a coullie'i between clauses 15 and 10, and 2 he was advised tliat the clause* as they n siuod were <iuite right, though there „ might be some overlapping- I{e "f™B a to the conditions necessitating 1J pti ■ cent, or the purchase-money being paid ( bofore a seller was relieved of lialuluy ( to pav graduated tax, the Premier said f lve would move a proviso to clause U enabliu" the Commissions of Taxes t „ enquire into the bona Mcs of puiclias-s , , i thin 15 per cent, was paid, , Sbto: hardship which might exist He g that the proviso should take y °'Mrl'lbard that the clause T r«lto operations of the etanse to estate among U -laUvera."| !«*»£ reeeipt lie wouCdcfcat ribieef of t,r Government in deSCon ' not dustnous \\ = ;t _ 15v Uua means e ° ,le l id been settled on the Ss trail's • Sosm^otthis ' !ni U as owuei of the lands, i would accordingly have to pay ! SV'^r^od 1 the statement that tlic pio 1 Clause amply protected the bona

Kded W Fg/C^ndTct H,adc mulei tht ° ould be cornUU |M to° r i'y in-aduated tax without polled to paj o . -i. ji e a rgucu iuypossibiUtyoicvad^^^^ that the opeiatious already desired by the Ull ®. •_ i.?, -Riii.

I 'T iC T il \hdSe said the intention port the clause with P have a Jlr. l'ield said as uity » e^-'.^rrTtaaiSSbourse tlZ'o"' to a Supreme Court ' lud = u ' • „vnv,.ssed his inability T he Premier W 8 " 1 it was the to accept the. bu fc t • utigilt ion. intention o tht llilj t Qf sale Mr. Buddo baid th that Ulcro without oceupa-Hutherford-uld--^ were sufficient clauses Son to transa^tions'taWng 1 place after the pass'"tlic ftt l ),in '

The House rammed lg Massev said his opinion was that ply to transactions that nan ltlfico during the last ■ unless the seller of land had obtained IB per cent of purchase money, lie would he liable for payment of Mr Hogf? said the object of the c . - J, fo the my base jr.^ that, had I>een carried on by WLfllt i> persons in evading the land tax rlie amount of 15 per cent, to his too little, and he urged that it would l.ave been better if the amount had been oj! nov oont- ~ « " -Mr Rutherford considered the claive n most iniquitous and unjust one It was far reaching, and. he questioned if any member in the house tnUy undeistood it. , Mr Dillon referred to the landowners in ITawke's Itay who looked upon Pariliment as'a eiiess board, and did tn-Mr best to checkmate every legislat.ve at,t attempted. "Skunks, I call thefii," he said. He knew people there who had £200.0(10 worth of land. Tf there were 110 loopholes in the Ttill so much the lietter. He hoped the Government would st'elc fast to the Bill. ( Mr Major said the new cause largely leit iirated retrospective legislation. Would it not, however, be better to let those people who had been guilty of t evasion to go scot free than perpetuate a principle of retrospective legislation! Mr Wander objected to retrospective legislation. He agreed with the main points of the "Bill hnt was inclined to vole against the whole thing on account of this clause. Mr Alison protested against retrospective lewislation. Mr W. Fraser said the only logci.il, conclusion of the Premier's remarks was that every person who during the last twelve years had sold property worth

over CSOOO was n rogue {'.ml vagabond,) mid who had endeivored to defraud the fit si to of its Just dues. The Premier Said he had not. stigmatised anyone as a rogue and vagabond.! He was onlv referring to properties on/ which Mm Department knew there had been evasion. Every property in ib*! return laid before the House covered] property that the Tax Department! know find been cut up for evasion pur-f poses. He did not believe in retro-1

Kppctive legislation generally, but there I were exceptions beyond the question. I The Lands for Settlement Aef, was a [ in point. Tn that .Art- rptroswcj 'i\v legislation bud licen ndrniited. On a. division, the amendment was re- ! jected by 41 to 18, Mr Massey then moved an amendment to strike out the 15 per cent proviso. with the object of inserting a le* ser figure. The amendment was negatived by 42 to 10. ' The Premier then moved a proviso that the Commissioner of Taxes be em-, powered to aeeept as apart from the provision of the Bill eases in which a ! sale had been made on a basis less ' than 15 per cent, where the Com-"! 1- ' sinner of Taxes was satisfied that, they j constitute an evasion of the graduated . land tax. * Tins was agreed to on the voiees.

Rub-section v}, providing that the i"a\: ( payable bv a large buyer mav be rToj ducted from the amount payable by the seller was agreed to on tbo voire*. The Premier moved a no"- suib-pnu.v to provide that the elnnsp shall n f »t op--1)1 v to any'transaetions mnrl" before five voirs previous to coming into onpratiou of tbo Act, or to pasps of pponlp owning !•>nd nf a v;i!no of more than rtn.nno. This was airree,! to without debnte. The Premipv moved a new clause to provide that the returns nf lnnd a.nl ineoinp shall be mndp nnvuallv. and ■h-*l| cent-i'n for en eh venv full m>d pompWo stntpmeftts '(a) of all land owned bv taxpayers ct noon on "314 (lay o? March immediately prpppdnig "(he vhy in and for which the lay is? to be ebnr<?- | ed: fb) of nil income derived by the laxpnver during the year ending 31st Mnvh nrf">»dinnr tli" voir ' | and for which the tax is to be charged. • i nrovided Ihnt where such return cannot ■ be fotivcnienflv made, the Commission er. in h»f discretion. mnv for the pur-

no«p of areept a return made "•> !r> ilr> ("liir. nf |l»n ••'•lnual balance of 'be t-ivim-cr's hooks. or be mnv accept an climated return wbieb sball be arti insle<l nn completion of such balance: j nf all oilier matters nn which iir'nrmMfion is required bv tbo Commissioner for tbo purpose of land ta\" a"d income tnx payable by the tavTho Vromier. replyinfif to sovpril niovibois' said be understood K

there were no charge to be made tVo taxpayer would mark "110 charge" on liis return of the previous year. Such a system would obviate a great deal 01 trouble on the part of both the taxpayer and the Department. Hie clause was agreed to on the. voices. Another clause to exempt church properties from payment of the graUua-rej] land tax was agreed to on the voices. I li.y consent of the committee, clause relating to land tax in'respect of minerals, timber and flax, was, on the! motion of the Premier, reconsidered, and the following proviso was moved: n assessing under the provisions ofi this section the income derived l>y any taxpayer from removal of (lax or limber' fi om any land there shall be deducted' nmoi'iVT 11 ' *° fivc ' lPr ccntnm of the! amount in respect of which the s;,id ;ixpayer was last assessed for land tax tionoftl" ?' 1 1 ,U ' ownoraM P or occupation of the. land used by him for Hie pro duction of such income." P>° (Left sitting.)