APPEAL DISMISSED

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 90, 13 October 1933, Page 7

APPEAL DISMISSED

PRIVY COUNCIL CASE

PAYMENT OF DEATH DUTIES

(Received October 13, 10 a.m.) ■ LONDON, October 12. The PVivy Council dismissed the New Zealand apjieal, Gould versus the Commissioner of Stamp Duties. The ease engaged the attention of .the Pull Court in March, 1933, before the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Myors, Mr. Justice Hordman, Mi. Justice Adjims, Mr. Justice MacGregor, and Mr. Justice Blair-' • The question before the Court was whether two sums of £4450 and £21,600 respectively were to bo excluded from the final balance of the testator's dutiable cstiito us assessed' by the Commissioner. The first-mentioned sum represented certain payments mado by tho testator within .three years of his death to one- of his sons, lan. Tho respondent claimed tha£ both sums in question were gif ts and were as such'properly included in computing the final balance of tho estato by reason of certain provisions of the Death Duties Act. The appellants, however, claimed that the sum of £4450 was property held by deceased in trust for the sou lan, and similarly they contended that tho sum of £21,600 was also held by the deceased as trustee for some of his children. , ' .■ : '■-, ■.■.■■•■■ ■ By various, deeds the testator purported to settle upon his children certain, moneys at that time in the hands of a trading firm of which ho was a member, and which held on hig behalf money, and securities greatly in excess of the amounts purported to be settled. Down to the date of his death he received tho interest on all his securities and paid to tho boncficiarios interest at an agreed rate, .which was substantially less than the average rate ho received.' At the hearing, Mr. Gresson, for the appellant, said the real questidu was whether a deed of sottjenxent, duly executed by the settlor 14 years ago, .upon which gift duty was paid, and under which the beneficiaries onterod into enjoyment of the income and paid income tax upon it, could be treated as nugatory on behalf of tho Commissioner, because the sottled fund still remained in the name of the sottlor at his death—tho securities Tepresonting the game nevor having been transferred. Mr. A. Fair, K.C., for respondent, said that bona fide possession and enjoyment of the trust fund was not assumed by the trustees or the beneficiaries less than three years before the death of the settlor and thenceforth retained to tho entire exclusion of tho deceased or of any benefit to him by contract or otherwise. The children never had possession and enjoyment of either the capital or income of tho trust fund. The Court dismissed the appeal. It was held that the testator had mado a valid declaration of trust in of sums of money equal in amount to those purported to be settled, but; as he had retained a, benefit in such moneys, such part thereof as was still'in hand, or had not been paid to beneficiaries moro than three years before his doath, came within the provisions of the Death Duties Act.