UNEMPLOYMENT TAX

Evening Post, Volume CXVI, Issue 96, 20 October 1933, Page 11

UNEMPLOYMENT TAX

GREENWOOD ESTATE

JUDGMENT VARIED

The Court of Appeal today varied the judgment of Mr. Justice Ostler in a case relating to the estate of the late Mr. Cf. D. Greenwood, of Teviotclale, Canterbury. The ease raised questions of law as to the liability of the executors and trustees of the late Mr. Greonwoodto pay instalments of the unemployed • emergency charge imposed by the Unemployment Amendment Act, 1931, for which the testator would have been liable personally had he lived. It was contendod on behalf of tho trustees that all liability to pay further instalments ceased 011 tho death of the testator, but this contention was not upheld by Mr. Justice Ostler, whose finding was that the trustees were liable to the Crown both for tho two unpaid instalments of the tax on the 1932 income and for all four instalments of the tax on the income for the year.ended March 31, 1933. Delivering the judgment of Mr. Justice Beed, Mr. Justice MaeGregor, and himself, the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) said they could see no reason to doubt. that, So far as. the general unemployment levy was. concerned, it was- an annual imposition, tax, or charge —call it what one would—and that it was one tax imposed by the statute for each year at the beginning of the statutory year (which for the purpose' of this, particular levy was August 1), though payable in four instalments. As far as concerned the year April, 1932, to March, 1933, said his Honour, the deceased became liable on April 1, 1932, to the emergency unernploy ment: tax payable for that year in respect of the- income which he derived during the previous year ended March 31', ■• 1932, and because he so became liable the appellants as his personal representatives were liable for the instalments which became payable after ho died..But he died on August 28, and the' liability for tho following year's taxation (April, 1933, to March, 1934) in respect of the income derived for the year ended March 31, 1933, did not attach until April 1, 1933, and, thetax being a personal imposition, no liability could attach to a person who was bo longer living. Liability on the part of the appellants as personal representatives would attach only if it could be said that the deceased was liable at the date of his death. In their opinion he was not. The tax in respect of wages or, salary became payable as each pay* ment of wages or salary -was received; The tax'in respect of income other than wages or salary was quite different. It became payable in the fiscal year (commencing April 1), following the year in which it was derived. Consequently, when Mr. Greenwood died in August, 1932, all that he was liable for was the balance of tie tax payable in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1933. No further liability could attach until April ■1, 1933, and then he was dead; and, as the liability was purely personal, nono could attach. "If it was intended that a person's estate should be liable after his death to pay the unemployment charge for the year following the death in respect of income derived during the year in which tho death occurs, we can only say that there is a casus omissus," continued his Honour. "The Court cannot 'fill in the gap—that can be done only by tho Legislature itself. '. . In our judgment it must be declared that the appellants, are not liable for tho four instalments of tho tax claimed to bo due on the first days of the months- of May, August, and November, 1933, and February,. 1834, and the judgment or the Court below must be varied accordingly." Mr. Justice Smith delivered a. separate judgment in which he agreed with the Judgment''of the Chief Justice with I regard to the emergency unemployment charge.." ;■ i- - ■ Dealing.wit*1 the question of costs,-, the Chief Justice said that there was a matter, to which they thought some reference should be made. In the case, for the first-time he thought, leading counsel appeared and not only did not condescend to address the Court, but: did not even explain why he did not address the-Court. It was not respectful to the Bench, and not consistent with the dignity of the Bar. At the. hearing Mr. H. D. Acland (Christehurch), Mr. P. B. Cooko, and Mi-. 11. J. V. James appeared for the appellants, and, Mr. A. Pair, K.C., for the.Crown. . ~