The Press. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1895. THE STAMP COMMISSIONER AND THE PUBLIC.

Press, Volume LII, Issue 9298, 26 December 1895, Page 4

The Press. THURSDAY, DECEMBER 26, 1895. THE STAMP COMMISSIONER AND THE PUBLIC.

An important Act of Parliament, amending the Stamp Acts, was passed last session. Among other provisions was one extending the definition of deeds of gift, and enacting that there shall be payable in respect of any property comprised in any deed of gift the same duties as would be payable under The Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act, 1881, in respect of a devise «or bequest Of such property. Clause 6, extending the defininition of "deed of gift" is as follows:— "In order to prevent the avoidance or evasion of dnties by family arrangaments or otherwise, the definition of ' deed of .gift' in section 7 of the Stamp Acts Amendment Act 1391 is hereby extended to include every deed or instrument whereby auy person, directly or indirectly, conveys, transfers or otherwise disposes of property to or for the benefit of any person conneoted with him by blood or marriage, in consideration or with the reservation of any benefit or advantage to er ia lavoar of biouitlf or any

other person, whether by way of rentcharge or life or any other estate or interest in the same or any other property, or by way of annuity _or other payment or otherwise howsoever, and whether such benefit or advantage is charged on the property comprised in such deed or instrument or not; and in as-essing the duties payable in respect of such property no deduction shall be made in respect of such benetit or advantage." It will be noted that this clause is very prolix and not very clear in its wording ; in fact, a layman who tries to make out exactly what it means is apt to be seized with a species of intellectual vertigo. We believe that there is a serious doubt in the minds of those who have studied it most carefully as to whether the clause does not in reality extend the definition of deed of gift so as to include a case in which one person sells to another person, to whom he is related either by blood or marriage, a property for full consideration and takes a mortgage for part of the purchase money; more than this it is considered open to doubt whether it does not even include the case of a sale straight out for cash. Of course nobody can complain of the section in so far as it prevents anything like a " family arrangement" to evade stamp duties. If it goes so far, however, as to prevent a bond jhle sale of property, for its full value, between persons related by blood or marriage, unless the vendor or purchaser is prepared ,to pay the heavy duties charged under the Deceased Persons Estates Duties Act, we believe that it goes further than the Legislature intended. At any rate we think it is only right the public should know exactly how the law stands. In order to get some authentic information on the subject, we ventured to write to the Commissioner of Stamps asking him to be kind enough to tell us for the public guidance what interpretation was put upon the clause in question by the Department. Although we are opposed to the Hon. W. P. Beeves in politics, and have had occasion to criticise his actions as a public man, we paid him the compliment of believing that when we applied to him for information on a subject of considerable importance to the publio, ho would not allow his personal feelings to stand in the way of giving us that information, especially as its publication would have facilitated the working of one of the departments over which he presides. In this, however, we were mistaken, as the following reply to our letter of enquiry shows:— "lam directed by the Honourable tho Commissioner of Stamps to acknowledge tlie receipt of your letter.of the 6th in&t., asking for _h interpretation of Clause 6 of the Stamp Act Amendment Act of last session to enable you to give the readers of the Press authentic information on the point. " In reply I am directed to inform you that the Commissioner cannot undertake to advise the public on abstract questions of stamp law. There is a provision in the Stamp Act, 1832, for obtaining from tlie Commissioner in v formal manner the assessment of an instrument presented to him for that purpose, but it was not contemplated that lie should be culled upon for hia inter* jji<" uion of a clause or clauses in a statute for publication in the public prints. " The public must interpret the law for itself, and the Commissioner in like manner for himself. " C. A. HICKSON, " Secretary for Stamps."'' We honestly regret that the Hon. W. P. Beeves has seen fit to take up the. attitude disclosed in this letter. We gave him credit for more largemindedness,. or at any rate for more common-sense. It need hardly be said that the honourable gentleman was not asked to " advise the public on abstract questions of stamp law." The fact was that an important Act affecting his Department was passed last session.; there v was,a good deal of uncertainty' among the public as to what some of its provisions really meant ; and we were .anxious, in the interests of the public, to inform them how the Government intended to interpret the clause upon which there was most doubt. Any other member, even of the present Ministry, we feel sure, would gladly have co-operated with us in such a desirable object. Mr. Beeves, however, replies that, if the public want to know anything about the Stamp Act, they must find out. If they want to learn the effect of this particular clause, he says, let them fix up the transaotionj let them go to the expense of paying lawyers to prepare the deeds ; also, it may be, of valuers to value the property; and then when they have done all this and present the instrument to him, under the provisions of the Stamp Act of 1882, he will give them his decision upon it. That is Mr. Beeves*s view of his duty to the public. We doubt, however, if the. public will consider that he is showing them the courtesy they have the right to expect from one of their servants.