Appeal Court.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XL, Issue 7791, 16 March 1904, Page 3

Appeal Court.

(Per Press Association)

WELLINGTON, March 16vj

In the appeal- Court, Mr Cotter, for Kauri Timber Company, contended that the Privy Council judgment in the New South Wales case did not go s,o far as the other skle contended. That case, he Said, was valuable as showing that the process of manufacture or production (may be divided into stages; and the income be held taxable in each, country according to the stages which take plr^ce in each. That was equitable and a principle which the Privy Council had indicated should >be applied. Counsel, therefore, contended that the line of demarcation In taxation by the Now Zealand Government should be drawn at the point Where the process ceased to i^bke place in New Zealand. Double taxation, ha argued, only occurred where the whole profit was earned in one country, tout the recipient resided in another country and received and spent it there.

Continuing his argument, Mr Cotter said that 'if the Kauri Timber Company's Boai'd in New Zealand contracted to supply timlbfeif an London ,tho whole of the profits from tile transaction would be taxable in New Zealand. Counsel contended that the Eastern Extension case was not analagous. Dealing with the Lani:l und Income Assessment Act, 1900, counsel argued .'that Income, to he taxable year by year, must be ascertainaMo year 'by year. There was no reason why the value of tinVber at a port of export from New Zealand should not be looked to for Uhe purpose of estimating Income earned by the company in N"ew Zealand apart altogether from tho question .of 'Sales afterwards effected elsewhere, whether after further treatment or not.

The Court-has reserved its decision