SHAKESPEAREAN COMPANY

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27011, 10 April 1953, Page 8

SHAKESPEAREAN COMPANY

Tax Relief Again Claimed MR QUAYLE REPLIES TO MR BOWDEN (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, April 9. Mr Anthony Quayle, director of the Stratford-on-Avon Shakespeare Memorial. Theatre Company, today made a point-by-point reply to comment on the subject of tax remission by the Associate Minister of Finance (Mr C. M. Bowden). “Mr Bowden says we are clearly liable to pay income tax,” said Mr Quayle, “but if this is the position, it is far from clear according to the Income Tax Act of 1923. “Section 78 of this act, paragraph j, says that income other than income of a business is exempt from taxation where it is derived by any society or institution established exclusively for charitable purposes, and not carried on for private pecuniary gain. “Paragraph k states that, where a society has objects as above but whose charitable purposes are not limited to New Zealand, the Commissioner of Taxes may apportion the income in such manner as he deems reasonable, and may allow a partial exemption accordingly. “A charitable purpose is defined as including every charitable purpose, whether it relates to the relief of poverty, the advancement of education or religion, or any other matter beneficial to the community,” he said. Mr Quayle contended that, under the Memorial Theatre’s Royal Charter, it definitely qualified as a charitable institution. Ministerial Powers “As to the Minister saying he did not have discretionary powers to remit tax, the act specifically mentions that the Commissioner of Taxes has this authority. Presumably this includes the Minister,” said Mr Quayle. Advice had been given to the company that it would be liable for income tax in New Zealand, but by this time all bookings and other arrangements had been made —indeed they had been made six months previously, Mr Quayle said. The company had decided to go forward with the tour, in the hope that the position might be cleared up favourably in New Zealand. “From his statement, it seems clear that Mr Bowden is under a misconception of the nature of this company,” Mr Quayle said. “It seems that it is being judged on the basis that it is a normal trading company, and not a charitable, non-profit-making concern. “As to Mr Bowden’s statement that he is sure the Commissioner of Inland Revenue will afford the company the most favourable consideration, I can only say that, from intimations received so far, there is no cause for optimism.” y

Mr Bowden had said that amusement tax was paid by the people attending, and not by the company, said Mr Quayle. From a strictly literal point of view, this was true. From a practical point of view, however, a company had to decide what was a reasonable admission charge. The tax came off this later, and the company got what was left. Mr Quayle said he thought Mr Bowden must be under a misapprehension when he said that the Stratford company was being treated in exactly the same manner as other companies of the same nature. “I do not know of any other company of a similar nature to ours.” he said. “This theatre company is unique in the world. The Ola Vic, for instance. receives an annual grant of £30,000 from the British Treasury. We do not receive one penny from the Government. We are entirely selfsupporting. Treatment of Old Vic Company “The Old Vic Theatre Company was given a complete remission of income tax in New Zealand,” said Mr Quayle. “This seems rather hard to us, since in that case several people were financially interested and profited proportionately.

“I emphasise again that no-one receives one penny of profits individually in this company. As to making a profit on the New Zealand tour, I make no apologies for trying to make the company financially sound. We do not want to become a burden on taxpayers. “However, I would point out that we have not yet made a profit-all we have done is to more than cover our operating costs in New Zealand and provide some thousands of pounds towards eliminating our initial outlay of £44,000. We still have a deficit of at least £20,000 to recoup. We cannot be said to have made a profit until we have covered that sum. “If at the end of the tour there is a profit—and it cannot be determined until then —I feel certain my governors will agree to give an undertaking that the New Zealand part of the profit will be used for financing another tour or other projects of benefit, to the New Zealand theatre.” Mr Quayle said. “Although I know he is very busy, I am trying to obtain an interview with Mr Holland to put our point of view. It may be that, in spite of the interpretation put upon the position by our taxation advisers, the New Zealand law is obdurate in this matter. “In this case, I can only say. as a great well-wisher to this country, that the New Zealand law appears to be operating against the best interests of New Zealanders,” Mr Quayle said. “Prestige productions of the quality given by us cannot be produced aby-, where in the world without some assistance. While the payment of the New Zealand tax will not make our company bankrupt, it is certainly going to jeopardise future visits by our own and other non-commercial companies.”