DEATH DUTIES AND GIFT DUTIES

Evening Post, Volume CII, Issue 151, 23 December 1921, Page 8

DEATH DUTIES AND GIFT DUTIES

! TO THISsDIIOS. Sir,—The Duties Act, 1921,,t0 deal with the payment of estates of .deceased persons and with property disposed of by way of gift, seems to be regarded by laymen as mainly intended to prevent persons doing things to diminish the value of their estate at death, and to increase the estate of someone else.

It is, however, much more than this. The interpolation of the gift duties part deals with the income during life on which income tax has been paid, but the receiver is not to be allowed to give in private charity from it to persons in need without pay:^; an additional duty tax on income so spent; and if ho also maintains or assists relatives, sums given in private charity have to be. added, and if the total of all gifts exceed certain limits he has to' pay the additional duty tax on the whole sum. Under the present laws' a person with ample, means is liable to maintain his destitute relatives reasonably according to means without paying additional income tax duty." The Act as now interpolated is illogical, unmoral,, and in its general application vicious and extravagant. Income tax returns are now made to the Treasury, which investigated, challenges and deals with them as required. It would be easy to get simultaneously, gift returns declared to be true and correct, distinguishing between private charities and gifts to relatives, and declared to be paid from income and not in diminution of estate. The Treasury , could then .investigate and judge if reasonable ana in proportion to fixed principles. A person who gives freely according to his means should be commended and not treated as an evildoer seeking to cheat the State by evading death duties. Tho Act is illogical in penalising a man for doing for his destitute relations what the law can make him do. It is immoral in discouraging liberal giving by those who can afford it. It is vicious because it involves more Civil servants and heavy expenses in administration. ■ It is sordid and mean in its conception, and is a tiling to be ashamed of. Would it be a iudicious thing to advertise this to attract emigrants and investors of capital to settle in New ZeaInnds? Is this the liberty we have fousht for? ' None but fools could reply in the affirmative.—l am, etc.. LAYMAN. 23rd December.