IS LAND TAX APPORTIONABLE?
PURCHASE PROBLEMS. (Pkb Ukited Pbebs Association.] WELLINGTON, May 3. _ The Coui't. of Appeal continued' this morning its hearing of argument; in the case of Charles v. Hysons and others. Mr Myers, for respondents, dealt further w itii the meaning of section 162 of tiie Land ami Income Tax Act, 1916. Mr Gray, K. 0., in reply, said that if the judgment of Mr Justice Reed stood the result might be chaos, ns a property might change hands several times in a year, with, the necessity for apportionment of land tax on each sale. Ju reply to a question, by Mr Justice Stringer as to whether it was reasonable that the owner of land, say, for one day should pay the land tax for the whole year, and the owner for 364 days pay nothing, Mr Gray replied that it was a matter for tho Legislature. At the conclusion of Mr Gray’s reply the court reserved its decision.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19220503.2.50
Bibliographic details
Evening Star, Issue 17958, 3 May 1922, Page 6
Word Count
161IS LAND TAX APPORTIONABLE? Evening Star, Issue 17958, 3 May 1922, Page 6
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.