FIGHTING PROHIBITION.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 July 1921, Page 5

FIGHTING PROHIBITION.

-SHOULD EXPENSES BE TAXED? AN APPEAL COURT CASE. By Telesraph.—Press Association. Wellington, July 5. The Court of Appeal was occupied this morning in hearing argument in a, ease stated by the Commissioner of Taxes. The case arose out, of the claim by Want and Co., Ltd., brewers, Christchurch, that the sum of £2123 3s lid expended by the company in figntiug the 1919 licensing poll should ‘be exempt from income tax.

The company based its claim to ex emption on the ground that the expen diture was legitimate and necessary ex penditure to protect the company’s re venue and enable it to continue its busi boss, and that the expenditure was ex elusively incurred in the production o; assessable income, the subject of assess ment.

: At the hearing this morning, Mr. Blair • and, with him Mr. Cooke, appeared for the company, and Mr. W. C. McGregor, K.C., Solicitor-General, for the Commissioner of Taxes. Mr. Blair, for Ward and Co., Ltd., contended that the expenditure was neces- ' sary to put the point of view of the j liquor party before the public. The expenditure was incurred for the purpose 'of assuring the life of the company. It i was not, he said, capital expenditure. Wellington, Last Night. , This afternoon the Court of Appeal ! continued the hearing of the case in which Ward and Company, brewers, of Christchurch, claimed exemption from income tex on money expended by them in connection with the licensing poll in April 1919. H

Mr. McGregor, Solicitor-General, who appeared for the Commissioner of Taxes, maintained that the expenditure was not wholly and exclusively incurred in earning income for the year on which the assessment was based, and was therefore liable to taxation. The expenditure, he said, was purely a capital one to obtain protection against a future change in the law which would destroy the company’s business. The influencing of the electors was no part of the business of brewing or selling beer. After Mr. Blair had replied the Court reserved its decision.