ONE GIFT OR MANY?

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 28, 1 August 1912, Page 7

ONE GIFT OR MANY?

TAXING CASE TO BE RE-ARGUED. An interesting point in regard to the Death Duties Act, 1909, was mentioned in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Cooper, to-day. The case under consideration was that of David Peat, farmer, 'Hillside, Wanganui, against the Commissioner of Stamps. Peat had a sum of £9000 which he wished to dispose of in eighteen separate gifts of £500. The Commissioner of Stamps said that the eighteen gifts were really one eingle disposition, and, as such, were' liable to a tax of £450. Mr. Justice Cooper was asked, at Wanganui, to set'aside this decision. His Honour dismissed Peat's appeal, but did not decide whether there 'were one single "disposition or eighteen separate gifts. Tho Crown Solicitors, however, sealed an order' for payment by Peat of a definite sum of £450. The appellant now moved to set this order aside on the ground that it did not express the intention of the Court ; that it mads the Judge apparently decide the matter which he did not decide, and which was not before the Court ; and that the order as drawn was one which the Court had no power whatsoever to make, because if a question of law were decided by the Judge, the assessment of duty had to bo made by the Commissioner. Tho effect of the order was to deprive the appellant of his independent right of appeal from the Commissioner's valuation of the gifts. Mr. R. Kennedy appeared in support of the motion, and tne Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. SalmondJ for the Commissioner of Stamps. When Mr. Kennedy had stated tho facts of the case, the Solicitor-General said he was willing to admit that it appeared that his Honour had decided a point which had not been before him. His Honour said he was rather inclined to set the order aside. The case was argued at Wanganui under unfavourableconditions. The Solicitor-General said that he was about to suggest that the order be set aeido and the case re-argued. Hio Honour set the order aside and withdrew his former judgment, in order that the case might be re-argued at Wellington on Wednesday next.