THE ABSENTEE TÀX.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4420, 16 May 1893, Page 3

THE ABSENTEE TÀX.

The Wellington Resident Magistrate was occupied for somo time yesterday afternoon in hearing a caso in which the Commissioner of Taxes sued tlio licv, J. 0, Andrew, of Ton Station, Masterton, for the sum of £33 7s 9d, due as absentee tax, and for £3 Gs 9(1, interest on the foregoing amount at the rato of ten per cent, on 14,890 acres of land in the Oere District, llawke's Buy, the property of Robert Curling, of London, I'or whom the defendant is agent, Mr Chilly appeared for the Land and Income Tax Department, and Mr Amliow, junr., for tlio defendant. A statement of defence was put in by tlio defendant, iu which he denied that he or Robert Curling were absentees within the meaning of the Act, and affirmed that he (defendant) had been resident within the Colony for the period required by the Act; and that if Curling was an absentee within the meaning of the Act, ii only applied to thoeo absentees who raided out of the Colony for a period of three yoaiß, and had not left an agent to represent tlicm in the Colony. The defendant, examined by Mr Gully, said bo was tho agent for Robert Curling, ,vho resided in London. Witness had been acting as attorney for him ever since 18G8, and had been in correspondence with him during that time. So far as he knew, there had been nothing to lead him to supposo that dming tlio last ihreo years Curling had been a resident in London. . .

: .'By Mr Andrew, jun.: During tho intervals'bet-wren which he bad hoard from Cut ling it would have been "quite p6ssiUo;for him .to have visited tho.'X'olonyi'/.;and. he' could not swear Curling had not done so, ....... Mr .Vnlre'.v, jnn,, t",r the defence, contended thai under section 17, subBeciiun 3 of tho Act, the agont was to be assessed and chargeable with the tax; that under section 11"ohlie Amendment Act of last year the definition of'owner' included 1 agent,' und. that,i.theiefore,.the,only inl'ireiicii .was.tlmt the ageiit was to be treated as the owner, and that, consequently, the absentee tax was only applicable to cases of absenteeism.u'h. re '.here was no agent in the Colony, Further, tliat if that contention was right the (iefeiidant was practically the '..owner,' and, as he had not been absent from the. Colony. for three years, he could not bo held liable, for the.pajment'of the tax. Mr.' Andrew '. also contendid that wider the power of attorney, thbdefendutit was not authorised to pay snytax that was not imposed on all the land owners ill the Colony. ; «;' ■ . His Worship gave judgment for tho plaintiff, with £3l3d costs* —N.Z.; Times, I'