CHILD TO STARVE?

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20731, 15 February 1939, Page 4

CHILD TO STARVE?

DEMAND FOR TAXATION METHOD OF ASSESSMENT “SHOCKS SENSE OF JUSTICE” (By Telegraph.—Press Association) DUNEDIN, Tuesday An appeal against assessment for income tax in the estate of the late David Scott, which was heard in the Supreme Court this morning, prompted the Chief Justice. Sir Michael Myers, to make some critical comments concerning what he considered to be the attitude of the taxation authorities toward their moral obligations. Mr D. L. Wood appeared for the trustees of the estate of Scott, and Mr F. B. Adams represented the Commissioner of Taxes. Mr Wood said that the testator in his will expressed a desire that the trustees should maintain his old home for the use of his daughter and that provision should also be made out of the income of the estate for the maintenance of his daughter until she came of age. The respondent desired to assess the entire income from the estate and not allow the appellants any exemptions for the upkeep of the house and the maintenance of the daughter. Principle Previously Decided The respondent argued, counsel continued, that income received by the trustees was not income received on trust for the maintenance of an infant, but that merely discretionary power had been vested in the trustees as to whether they should maintain the child. His Honour: That may be right in law, but it shocks one’s sense of justice. Does the commissioner wish the trustees to leave the child to starve? The principle contained in this appeal was decided by the previous commissioner, and on moral grounds. He determined it justly. I am surprised that the question has been reopened. Mr Wood said that the appellants submitted that the will had been erroneously interpreted by the respondent. His Honour: The testator intended that the object of his bounty should not be compelled or permitted to starve. It was intended that she should be properly maintained. That is your contention, is it not? Mr Wood: It is. Your Honour. Question of Justice His Honour: The testator expressed that intention with tolerable clearness. Even if the trustees failed to keep up the house, they would have to maintain the child. If they did not, then the Court would be entitled to compel them to do so. Mr Wood said that in maintaining the home and providing for the maintenance of the testator’s daughter the trustees were carrying out his wishes. His Honour: The Court is here to do justice and to see that if the taxing authority makes a just claim it shall succeed, hut it is also here to see that if the claim is not just it shall not succeed. After hearing further legal argument His Honour reserved his decision.