OVER £ll8,OOO

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 219, 12 June 1930, Page 10

OVER £ll8,OOO

Super-Tax Remissions MANY CANCELLATIONS Why Relief Was Granted Remissions totalling £118,287 were made by the Commission which recently investigated cases of hardship arising from the imposition of the super land tax by legislation last session. According to a summary of the Commission’s report, released for publication yesterday by the Prime Minister (Hon. G. W. Forbes), there were 688 objections, and cancellation of the taxwas recommended in 399 cases, and a reduction in 109 cases. The Prime Minister stated that the hearing of objections was commenced in Wellington on December 6, 1929, and concluded on May 13, 1930. For the purpose of taking oral evidence sittings were held also in Napier, Palmerston North, Dunedin, Timaru, and Christchurch. All applicants were required to furnish written evidence in the following form:—A detailed statement of the grounds on which it was contended that the payment of special land tax would entail serious hardship; a detailed statement of income and expenditure in respect of the year ended on March 31, 1929; and a detailed statement of assets and liabilities at the same date. Those statements were required to be supported by an affidavit and the certificate of an accountant was required in cases where accounts had been prepared by an accountant. Term Interpreted. 4 “In the majority of cases,” proceeded the Prime Minister, “the written evidence submitted was sufficient to enable a decision to'be come to, but in other cases information for earlier years was requested; oral evidence was also taken'in a number of cases. As the term ‘serious’ hardship was not defined in the statute, the Commissioners gave what they, considered a fair and equitable interpretation to the term as applied to each individual case. All decisions of the Commission were unanimous. Objection Grounds. “Among the large number of grounds of objection put forward the following were the most important:— “(a) That the ordinary land tax and special land tax payable in respect of the,property was greatly in excess of what the income-tax payable by the objector would have been. “(b) That owing to the fact that the taxpayer's farming operations for the year ended on March 31, 1929, had resulted in a loss, the special land tax as well as the ordinary land tax would have to be paid out of income from other sources, or out of capital. “(c) That in arriving at the special land tax no allowance had been made for the fact that ’the taxpayer's land was subject to heavy mortgages. “(d) That the taxpayer had disposed of his land prior to the passing of the Land and Income Tax Amendment Act, 1929, but after March 31, 1929. “(e) That having regard to its productive capacity, the unimproved value of the taxpayer’s land was too high. “(f) That the taxpayer was the owner of urban lands in addition to country lands, and that the special land tax had consequently been levied at the rate applicable to the total unimproved value of the combined urban and couritry lands, and not at the rate applicable to the unimproved value of his ‘farm’ lands. Subdivision Possibilities. “With regard to the question whether all or any of the lands of the objectors were capable of subdivision, a considerable amount of, evidence was tendered, but as the order of reference did not empower the commissioners to make investigations or report as to the suitability for closer settlement of the lands under review, no definite statement on this question could be given. “The main contentions put forward in respect of such lands were as follow:— “(a) That the land had already been offered to the Government for the purposes of subdivision and ha<j been declined as being unsuitable. “(b) That the land had already been subdivided by the taxpayer and offered for sale without success. “(c) That the taxpayer had no power to subdivide the land owing to his having granted a lease for a term of years, or to his being merely a tenant for life or a lessee. “(d) That the land was high pastoral country and not suitable for subdivision, being more productive and more economically worked in large areas than if divided into smaller holdings. Reasons for Relief. “Six hundred and twenty-eight objections were submitted to the commissioners for consideration. Of these they recommended the cancellation of the special land tax in 399 cases and the reduction of the special land tax in 109 case?. In twenty-three of the cases submitted they considered, that the evidence tendered did not justify any recommendation for relief. In the remaining cases the applicants failed to furnish the evidence required or failed to appear, or withdraw their objections. “The percentage of cases where total relief was recommended is high,” the Prime Minister added, “and may be acaccounted for by the fact that these objectors comprised holders of land who were subject to heavy financial liabilities, combined with other forms of hardship which called for relief. “The amount of special land tax recommended to he remitted in full was £86.552/19/3, and of partial remissions £31.734/10/8, making a total of £118,287 9/11.” z