Judge Condemns Official's Method Is Assessing Duty

Taranaki Daily News, 31 August 1942, Page 4

Judge Condemns Official's Method Is Assessing Duty

Not way to conduct business of department. Wellington, Aug. 29. The procedure of the Commissioner of Stamp Duties in connection with the assessment of the value of the license of the Manchester Hotel, Feilding, for the purpose of death duties was criticised in a judgment given at Wellington by the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers. The case was one in which Mrs. Louisa Maria Barrett. 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 license and good will was £3000. For the purpose of assessing death duty the commissioner determined that the value was £8000. He assessed death duties accordingly. and the appellant's objection was disallowed.

Course Condemned. 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 commence- i ment of the case very properly admitted that it was impossible for him to ask the court to assess the value of the license of the Manchester Hotel at a higher amount than £5000. "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 license. 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 commissioner that he valued the license at £5000. 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 £5000, and inform the appellant accordingly. His reply, to my astonishment, was that he did not conceive it to be his duty to do so. "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 £8000. That is not the way in which, in my opinion. a high officer of a revenue department 6hould 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 £8000 to £4600. Costs were allowed against the respondent.