DEATH DUTIES.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1316, 20 December 1911, Page 6

DEATH DUTIES.

IMPORTANT CASE. IBy TelccraDh.— Preij Association.) Christchurch, December 19. Before Mr. Justice Denniston, at the Supreme Court, in the matter of the estate of John Bulleid, late of Oamaru, draper, deceased, an appeal was heard between Fanny Bulleid, widow, administrator of the estate, and. the Commissioner of Stamps. Air. S. G. Raymond, instructed by Mr.'Leo, of Oamaru. appeared for the appellant, and Air. Stringer, K.C., for the respondent. Tiio case, as stated by the Commissioner nf Stamps, was that John Bulleid died on September 17, 15110, and the final balance of his estato was certified under the provisions of the Death Duties Act, 1909,'t0 be of the value of ,£.')o;ii2u 3s. 2d. Of this amount the sum of .£30,591 bis. lid. represented the value of property comprised in a deed of gift executed by the;deceased in favour of his wife on October 9, 1909, which was deemed, bv virtue of Section S (1 B) of the Death 'Duties Act, to'bo part of the dutiable estate of the. deceased. Estate duty was assessed by the Commissioner of Stamps upon Ihe final balance of the- Citato of the deceased at .t2317 10s. Ild., being 7 2-."lrd per 'Centum upon £10,020 .Is. 2d. Succession duty was assessed unon the succession of the appellant at Mill ,Is.'"d„ being 2 per centum unon ,1:30.591 • 15s. lid., and upon ill Is. 3d.,.tlie value of .tho appellant's succession to tho property of the deceased, exclusive of property comprised in the deed of gift. Tho appellant refused to pay tho succession duty, alleging that she was not a successor of the deceased within the meaning of Section 15 of the Death Duties Act, 1909, inasmuch as .-he did not become entitled to the said property on the, death of her husband, but before his death. The question for the Court, therefore, was whether the appellant was successor of the deceased within tho meaning of Section 15 of tho Death Duties Act. 1909. and .therefore liable to pay succession duty as assessed. The gift was made on October 9, 1909. and the Death Duties Act canie into-fnrce nn December '.'I. The Court was asked (o decide whether the widow fame wjthin the definition id "successor," wMch was defined by the Act, as meaning "any person who on the death of the deceased who has become entitled to any ' woperly forming part of the dutiable estate of tho deceased as a beneficiary under any gift or donatio merlins cau.-a made by the deceased within three years before his death." .Mr. Raymond submitted that Section 15 of the Act imposed a tax on property passing by gift to a successor deriving air interest on (he death of the deceased. He distinguished succession duty ,".s affecting persons benefiting on a death from estate duty, which was levied on (lie wholo estate. He claimed that any other construction would lead lo retrospective legislation. That was quite outside the scheme of the statute, and would lead to great hardship. Mr. Stringer that the Commissioner claimed that the statute was retrospective in tonus, and affected any gift made three years prior to death. The same consideration applied lo succession | duty as to e.-tafc duty, which was c iiai-i-'---able miller similar circumstances. | All. Knvmoiid replied that e-tate dnlv was leviable only on th» .. ; fatc in the hands of the ndminiitrutor. Jedi'ment .w.as rejcu.eeL. J_