EXEMPTION CLAIMED

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 143, 13 March 1931, Page 8

EXEMPTION CLAIMED

Taxation Assessment FARMERS’ INSTITUTE CASE The appeal of the Dominion Farmers’ Institute Ltd. against a decision of the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myers, In regard to a taxation assessment came before the Appeal Court yesterday. On the bench were Mr. Justice Reed (presiding), Mr. Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Ostler and Mr. Justice Smith. Prior to 1926 the company erected an eight-story building on its Wellington property and subsequently acquired adjoining sites. Tiie company' claimed exemption equal to 5 per cent, on the. Government valuation of the additional land over 61 months in 1927, and 5 per cent, in 1928, a total of £563/9/7. Those, deductions were disallowed by tiie Commissioner of Taxes, who declined to allow the two properties to be joined together as one for the purpose of the company’s business, but allowed a deduction of the income derived from the land in those two years. ™ , x, In May last year the Chief Justice decided that the Assessment of the Commissioner of Taxes was correct and must be confirmed, and he therefore disallowed the appeal of the company. Against this the company appealed. For the appellant company it was contended that the land was used and occupied solely in connection with the comnany’® business, and that the Commiesioner of Taxes was not entitled to assess the company on two incomes, both of which were derived from rents. The contention for the respondent was that the vacant land was being held by the appellant with a view to building thereon and letting such buildings, and was not-being used exclusively for. denying rent or other profits for the purpose of the company’ll business, so that the company was not entitled to exemption. Alternately it was contended that if any deduction was authorised it was allowed onlv against income derived from such land and was limited to £9O derived in 1927, and £Bl in 1928. The court was asked to say to what exemption, if any, the appellant was entitled. The court announced that it would take time to consider its decision. Mr.-Gray, K.C., with him Mr, Foden, was for the appellant company, and Mr. Fair, K.C., for the Commissioner of Taxes.