REMISSIONS OF LAND TAX TOTAL £118,287

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7241, 12 June 1930, Page 7

REMISSIONS OF LAND TAX TOTAL £118,287

628 Objections Under Hardship Clause REPORT OF COMMISSION Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, Last Night.

The Prime Minister has issued the following summary of the report of the commission to enquire into cases oi hardship under the income Tax Amendment Act, 1929. All the applicants were required to furnish written cvi. donee iu the following form: —(a) A detailed statement on tho grounds on which it is contended payment of the special land tax would entail serious handicap; (b), a-detailed statement oJ lniiomc and expenditure iu respect of the year ended ou Match 31, 1929; (c) a detailed statement of assets and liabilities as at tho 3.lst day of March, 1929.

These statements were required to be supported by an affidavit and tho certificate of an accountant was required in cases whero accounts had been prepared by an accountant. In the majority of cases tho written evidence thus submitted was sufficient to enable a decision to bo conic to, but in other cases information for earlier years was requested. Oral evidence was also taken in a number of cases. As tho term “serious” hardship was not defined in tho Statute, the commissioners gave what they considered a fair and equitable interpretation to the term as applied to each individual case. All tho decisions of tho commission wefo unanimous. Among a large number of grounds of objection put forward the following) were the most important:—* (a) That tho ordinary land tax and special laud tax payable in respect of property was greatly in excess of what tho income tax payable by- the objector would have been.

(b) That owing to the fact that taxpayers’ farming operations for the year ended on March 31, 1929, had resulted in a loss by the special land tax as well as the ordinary land tax would have, to be paid out of income from other sources or out of capital.

(c) That in arriving at tho special l.vjri tn? no allowance l ad been made for the face that the taxpayers’ land was subject to heavy mortgages.

(d) That the taxpayer had disposed of his land prior to the passing of tho

Land and Income Tax Amendment Act, 1929, but after the thirty-first day of March, 1929. . (e) That having regard to its productive capacity the unimproved value of the taxpayers’ land was too high. (f) That the taxpayer was the owner of urban lands in addition to country lands and that the special land tax had consequently been levied at the rate applicable to the total unimproved value of the combined urban and country lands and not at the rate applicable to the unimproved value of his “farm’’ lands.

With regard to the question whether all or any of the lands of the objectors was capable of sub-division, a considerable amount of evidence was tendered but as the order of reference did not empower the commissioners to make investigations or report as to the suitability for closer settlement of the lands under review no definite statement on this question could be given. The main contentions put. forward in respect of such lands were as follows: — (a) That the land had already been offered to the Government for the purposes of sub-division and had been declined as being unsuitable. (b) That the land had already been sub-divided by the taxpayer and offered for sale without success. (c) That the taxpayer had no power to sub-divide the land owing to his having granted a lease for the term of years or to his being merely a tenant for life or lessee.

(d) That the land was high pastoral country and not suitable for subdivision, being more productive and more economically worked in large aicas than if divided into smaller holdings. Six hundred and twenty-eight objections were submitted to the commissioners for consideration. Of those they recommended the cancellation of the special land tax in 399 eases and a reduction of tho special land tax in 109 eases. In 23 of the eases submitted they considered that tho evidence tendered did not justify any recommendation for relief. In the remaining eases the applicants failed to furnish the evidence required or failed to appear or withdrew their objections.

Tho percentage of cases where the total relief was recommended, is high and may be accounted for by the fact that these objectors comprised holders of land who were subject to heavy financial liabilities combined with other forms of hardship which called for relief. The amount, of special land tax recommended to be remitted in full was £86,552 19s 3d, and of partial remissions £31,734 10s 8d ; making a total ef £118,287 Ss-UtU