DOUBLE INCOME TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 51, 29 February 1916, Page 6

DOUBLE INCOME TAX.

A PROTEST FROM LONDON. V: REPRESENTATIVE MEETING. (Received 1.45 p.m.) j ■ - :; ■:' :■: LONDON", February 28. ':.§ A meeting held under the auspices of V' the London Chamber of Commerce anjt an Association formed to protest agaifaet : the duplication of income tax within'the> Empire, took place to-day in the Cannon S Street Hotel, London, E. The large hall ! of the hotel, where all the important • business meetings are held in the City ■ was crowded. There were eighteen nun' v dred people present, the number including V the representatives of the colonial banks ■'• mercantile and financial housee, etc! There were many ladies present. Lord Southwark, formerly Sir E. Ry . Causton, head of the -well-known printing: firm, presided. ° Mr. J. A. Bryce, Liberal member"for ; ' Inverness, moved: "That in the interests '■'.'■■' of trade and commerce and the unity of the Empire it is essential that steps be - taken by the Imperial Government t« ensure that relief be given in the matter"' of the imposition of double income tax within the Empire." Mr. Bryce said ife ::' was essential that in these times all the' ties of the Empire should be drawn aj.. close as possible. The imposition of the double taxes might seriously imperil that - ; desired end. If the head offices of firms" were to leave the United, Kingdom there . would be a tendency to get the planfeleVf.; where than in the United Kingdom, though he did not think the Australians' would do that He was sure the Govern- 1 " menfc would yield if sufficient preesufe were brought to bear. The Hon. E. B. Wise, formerly AgentGeneral for Nerw South Wales, in support:;.'■ ing the motion, referred to the special hardship that a large number of British, subscribers to Australian loans suffered if income tax were collected in the Com- " monwealth and again in Great Britain; Mr Wise referred to the great injuetia ; of the Australian Act of 1914, charging - income tax on money which never came ■ to Great Britain. It was especially unjust ■■ that visitors to Great Britain should lie taxed on money left in Australia to dt-; velop its industries. There must be k . recognition of the .fiscal unity of theiEnW . pire. They did not want to shirk-their; fiscal responsibilities, but there must he;. equality -with the rest of the Empire. He':, alluded to the £40,000,000 raised in Australia for the war. It was safe to eiy./ that another £40,000,000 would be raised,"" Mr Young, in suporting the' motion; the fact that Great Britain taxed residents on income wherever ifj was made. The Dominions only taxed on income made there. Australia was acting;;; wisely in conserving financial control of: the companies in ■ Australia, and not i driving them abroad. The double incdine :<: tax would not have any result other thSii7> to divert money from the Dominions. '{ That would be a most serious statjßbf;--things from the Empire viewpoint. There 1 was a.;.necessityr-,to'.huiJd.-Up ,th,e._Ejjipirt \ and make it self-supporting, arid that wa|! I only possible by keeping the money in thi';; ; f Empire. He referred to the thousands JfV j people that came to Great Britain si«MJ.because they sent their sons toMfij' front. It was a cruel injustice that tliij, should be paying double income taxis-: cause of their patriotism. . ■!' The motion was carried TinamnKruslyi '/-A arid it was resolved to ask Mr HoKenh* - f: (Chancellor of the Echequer) and Mr - Wm. Hughes (Premier .of Aulfialia), : X who is at .present on a visit to to receive a deputation. ' ; •_.__-