Hawke's Bay Herald. SATUEDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1893. WHAT ARE IMPROVEMENTS?

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 9544, 2 December 1893, Page 2

Hawke's Bay Herald. SATUEDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1893. WHAT ARE IMPROVEMENTS?

If tbe Hon, Mr Reeves is right in a little contention he has bad with Mr John Holmes, a Christcburcb lawyer, tbe ex-

emption of improvements, so loudly landed by Ministers, will to some people prove a delusion and a snare. Mr Holmes, in illustrating some inequalities of the land and income tax, asserted that the owner of buildings in town worth £10,000, standing on land worth £2000, would only pay £8 in land tax ; that a man having buildings worth £46,000 on land worth £4000 would not pay. the progressive tax; and that n man with £50,000 Invested on mortgage would not have to pay any progressive tax, Mr Reeves denied all these statements,

asserting that in the first) case the man

would pay £82 10s, and that in the two latter he would pay progressive taxation. Now if Mr Keeves i 3 correct the Government intend to defy the law. They did

so under the old Act, whioh allowed Improvements to the value of £3000 to be exempted, Certain landowners claimed that thoir residences were entitled to be elaesed na improvements. The Tax Com. missloner, of course acting under instructions from Ministera, did not allow the claim when in Ms opinion the residence waa more expensive than was required for the working of the property. No one, so far as we know, tested the point in a court of law, so tbe Commissioner's onrions ruling stood. By Borne such devious reasoning Ministers may attempt to ?et aside the Act of last year, but if it is resisted we have not the shadow or a doubt that the Commissioner will be defeated. Cliuse 11 of the Act reads 88 follows:—" Io schedule A [of the ] Act of 1892] :— All references therein to the value of improvements upon land up to three thousand pounds shall henceforth he deemed omitted from such schedule j and all tax on laud under the said Act

shall be aseeseed and levied in the amount of the assessed value of such land after deducting the vahte of all improvements thereou; and the expression 'improve--1 ments ' shall hare the same meaning as it now haß by virtue of the said sohednle.' If we turn to the original schedule we find that «' lmprovements" are defined to include "houses and buildings, fanning, plantiog, draining ot land . ... the benefit of which is unexhausted at the time of valuation." Consequently a man In the position first cited by Mr Holmes wonld not pay on buildings, In the second case be wonld not be called upon to pay progressive tax, for the Act of last year fixes the commencement of that tax on land (not property) worth over £6000. The third case Is governed by section 2 of Bchidule A, cause 3, which provides that " no mortgagee shall be liable to the graduated tax imposed under schedule B of this Act." Therefore Mr Holmes' third contention ia right if there be any virtue in Acts of Parliament). Mr Holrms, replying to Mr rieDves, is ued the following challenge :-" I say th.t Mr Keevea is wrong in both cnßep, and that he is shame, fnlly ignorant of tho laws ho helps and is paid to make. No wonder they are bad. I challenge Mr Rew to put our differences of opiuiou Id the following test : the questions to be enbuiiited to Missrs Stout, Uetketh, und Srriager (the Crosvn Proetriutor appointed by Mr Reeves). It a majority di-Ckle o({aifast mo 1 sh ill pay the fees of all, and stand publiOly convicted of being nu ipnoramns. Hi a mijority decide against him, then he is to stand publicly convicted of being an ignoramup, and totally unfit for the position he hod*."