FILM TAX IMPASSE

Evening Star, Issue 20592, 18 September 1930, Page 14

FILM TAX IMPASSE

GOVERNMENT “STANDS PAT” WHAT WILL HAPPEN ? [Special to the ‘ Star.’] AUCKLAND, September 18. The Government Ims refused to reopen the question of the film tax, upon which negotiations have been going on in Wellington since the arrival of Sir Victor Wilson, who informed the ‘Star’ to-day by phone from Wellington that he received the Government’s decision at 6 last night in a letter from Mr Ransom, Acting Premier. Sir Victor Wilson thereon cabled New York a summary of the position, and has since been advised that the representatives of all the film interests affected by the decision will meet in New York at noon to-day to consider it. Sir Victor said he was desperately sorry that a way out of the difficulty could not bo found without throwing tho industry in this country into such an impasse. He will make a full statement on receipt of reply from America. WHY CONFISCATORY? .ACTING PREMIER'S FIRM STAND [Per United Press Association.] WELLINGTON, September IS. Interviewed this morning, Sir_ Victor Wilson, president of the Film Distributors’ Association, said it was quite correct that he had received a letter from the acting Prime Minister stating that the Government was_ not prepared to reopen the investigation or to_ have an inquiry into the position. Sir Victor said lie hoped to make a complete statement or the whole case within the pexfc day or so, as he believed that not only the trade, but the public were entitled to know tho whole of the circumstances of tho ’present lockout 4 in the film industry. Ho also said that he had a cable message from Mr Munro (acting managing director of the Fox Corporation)- to deny that that organisation contemplates tho purchase of theatre interests in New Zealand. Mr Munro says: “ Wo are not interested; please publish a denial.” In an interview to-day Mr Ransom said: “If the tax brings in more than is anticipated by tho Government it can only mean that the net rentals, after deducting administrative expenses and the amount on which income tax is payable, aro greater than was estimated. If the rentals are greater it simply means that tho surplus remaining for _ the film companies is greater than if tho yield from the tax was less. Thus the renters should be the last to complain of the tax producing more than was estimated.” After quoting the points made by the Minister of Internal _ Affairs in reply to a recent deputation, Mr Ransom says: “ The distributors have to explain why the tax is confiscatory and causes a lockout, while taxation in Australia involving the same percentage of gross rentals can be accepted with more or less equanimity. The British film producers, who share the principles involved in the tax, have raised no such questions as lockouts and boycotts, bCit, on tho contrary, have assured the Government of their determination_ to carry on with the hope that when times are better the Government will agree to review the matter.” In regard to the statement, “ the distributors’ action is not bluff. Having withdrawn under Mr Hays’s instructions, they must stay out until Mr Hays gives them permission to recommence business,” Mr Ransom says: “In this connection let me say that tho industry must clearly understand that the Government will not tolerate interference in the domestic affairs of the dominion on the part of any foreign corporations.