THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1891. ATTACKING THE PREMIER.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2299, 31 December 1891, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 31, 1891. ATTACKING THE PREMIER.

Foil reasons which we need not specify we have not been able to pay much attention to public matters during tlje past few weeks. In that short space of time the Tory Press of New Zealand has almost gone mad on a little matter which had its origin in our columns. Their actions remind us of Dean Swift's description of the Yahoos when they took refuge up the trees, and from that position of safety indulged in flinging filth all around them. From behind the veil of anonymity these gentlemen have been doingwonderful execution, but as no one has been hurt we shall leave them there for the present, and turn to matters of greater public interest. Immediately after Mr Rhodes addressed his constituents in Temuka recently, we published a telegram from the Honorable Mr Ballance in which he said " There is some doubt as to the meaning of the foreign debenture holders cjause. The intention, however, was that there should be no duplicate taxation, that the money should not be taxed twice over, and this will be made clear before any tax is collected. If you look into the Act , you will find that there is a reference I to duplicate taxation, and the meaning can be deduced from these words." Now this has set all the Yahoos fling' ing filth around them. They have pictured Mr Ballance in terrible colors because of the fact that there is room to doubt the meaning of a certain clause of the Act. That such a mistake should have occurred proves the incompetency of the Government they say, but will tjiese gentlemen try to recollect that Sir Harry Atkinson borrowed something like £20,000,000 of money of office, yet he made a m'JPffke in drating the Loan Act of 1887, and he was not able to borrow under it, until he got it amended in 1888. If, therefore, gir Harry Atkinson made a mistake in : such a simple thing ns a Loan Act after having nearly 20 years experience of sjjch work, can any one wonder at an error cropping up in the most important measure that ever passed tJijrpugh the jNew ZealaudParlia,j«ent? j - /

Let no one ihink that the Land and Income Tax Act is a small measure. It was simply a Herculean work to think it out irtall its details, especially in the short timfe the. Ministry had at their disposal, and if it contains errors it is nothing more nor less than what might be expected., We think we may safely say that no measure of any importance ever passed through Parliament which did not require to be amended, and it would be something wonderful if the Land and Income Tax Act had proved > an exception to the rule. With a candor which is characteristic of him, 1 Mr Ballance says in effect " The meaning of the clause is doubtful, but the doubt will be removed, as it was not intended that money should be doubly taxed," and this is all he has done to draw upon him so much abuse. On a previous occasion we pointed out that so far as double 1 taxation was concerned no amendment is necessary. Clause 10 provides that the Commissioner must refund any money erroneously collected from any doubly taxed property. Is there -anything more wanted ? If a mistake is made in the collection of the money the Commissioner must refund it. Now, we have read a large number of newspaper comments on this subject, but all of them have carefully avoided any reference to this clause. Everything no doubt is fair in love and war, in the eyes of our Tory contemporaries, but at the same time we must characterise their conduct as extremely dishonest.

MR RHODES ON TAXATION

The following appeared recently in the Christchurch Press :-

" Sir, —In reference to your leader of the 9th instant I should be glad if you will publish at foot hereof the enclosed copy of a letter from the Commissioner of Taxes to the Northern Investment Company of New Zealand, Limited, which I have just received from the Manager of the Company with permission to publish. This more than bears out my view of the amount of taxation to be paid by the non-privileged Companies. Your readers will see that the Commissioner claims : Ist. One penny in the £ on the registered mortgages on land, i.e., one peuny per £ on £476,921. 2nd. Income tax at Is in the £ on the interest at £5 per cent, on the debentures issued in England, viz., £381,642, being a part of the previous sum on which the mortgage taxis claimed. But to my astonishment the Commissioner is not satisfied with this. Like Oliver Twist, he asks for more. The Act, as interpreted by the Commissioner, is more severe on these Companies than I had supposed. 3rd. The Commissioner, you will observe, also claims Is in the £1 income tax on £11,235, being the net profits made by the Company. My examination of their balance-sheet shows me that the whole of their net profits, or all but a very trifling sum, are made out of the mortgages already taxed twice, as shown above. I thought the effect of the Act as interpreted by me was quite bad "enough. How much worse it is if the Commissioner's view is correct. However, I think it will be found that the Commissioner is wrong as to this last demand. The only doubt I have on the subject is as to which of them the Commissioner or Mr Ballance is the most ignorant as to the operation and effect of the Act.—Yours, &c, Arthur E. G. Rhodes. Property Tax Department, Wellington, 2nd December, 1891. The Public Officer, Northern Investment Company of New

Zealand, Ltd., Napier. Sir, —I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of yonrs of the 19th ultimo, and to apologise for the delay that has • unavoidably arisen in replying to it. i Forms were posted to the Company's . address on the 20th ultimo, and have , doubtless been received in due course j Under the Land and Income Tax Act of 1891, the Company will be taxable on i|s ' funds invested in land or in mortgages of real property, and returns must be sent giving a detailed statement of each. Wool liens will not be treated as mortgages. It will, therefore, not be necessary • to return them, nor will it be necessary to return interest accrued, money deposited with a Bank, or office furniture. I send you a statement, as requested, compiled from the balance-sheet sent by you and from the balance-sheet of 30th (June, 1890. The debenture interest has . been gajqulated at 5 per cent. Yours obediently, John MoGqwan, Pro Commissioner. Northern Investment Company op New Zealand, Limited, land tax. .££ £ £ On real property Nil On mortgages 476,921 Graduated at Id 1,987 3 5 tax * ■' ■ Nil INCOME TAX. Funds invested 452.97! Less capital 100.000 Bank 1,387 381,042 atSp.c. 19,082 at Is 954 2 0 Net profits 11,235 J . at Is 561 15 0 3,503 0 5 Except for Graduated Land Tax the rates flr§ tg be annually fixed." The reader would 4q tq read over again the last sentence in J\fr Rhodes's letter, in which he says thr Commissioner is wrong and ignorant. TJjjs js delightful. Weilding this document triumphantly in the air with a flourish that would have I, done credit to the immortal Quixote, he says in effect, '• This I' is the proof of my contention, j ] but it is all wrong. The Com- 1j njissiouer is wrong and ignorant. I

don't know which of them—the

Commissioner or Mr Ballance—is the most ignorant of the operation and effect of the Act." This is really the most beautiful piece of bog-logic we have ever come across in the whole course of our existence. " The thing is wrong " he says " but it proves my argument." How could it prove anything if it is wrong? And if it is wrong in one particular no reliance can be placed on it in any respect. As an argument the document is, therefore, not worth the paper it is written on, and we cannot help sympathising with Mr lihodes's guilelessness in not having been able to see the simplicity of his own action. The Commissioner is wrong on the very face of his own letter. By referring again to his letter it will be seen that the Commissioner says "wool liens will not be treated as mortgages. It will, therefore, not be necessary to return them, nor will it be necessary to return interest accrued, or money depositad with a bank." Yet in the account he has rendered, interest is charged twice over. It is plain that this is an awful terrible muddle, and that the Commissioner does not know what he is doing. Mr Rhodes is, therefore, perfectly right in saying the Commissioner is wrong and ignorant. 1 but alas ! For his own contention he j thus reduces it to the staff of which dreams are made. If the Commissioner collected the taxes as stated above any Court of Justice would make him refund the money under clause 10 of the Act.