PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ACT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6001, 10 February 1881, Page 3

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT ACT.

COURT-OF REVIEW. [Before Messrs. B. Tonks (President), R. Proude, and "YV. P. Moat.] Ihe Reviewers sat yesterday in open Court for the purpose of giving judgment (reserved) in cases of public companies, and for hearing further objections to valuations. AlburniaG.M. Co.—Mr. E. Hesketh appeared in support of the objections to the valuation. . In this case the public officer returned the shares as being of the market value of 35s each. The total assessed value upon this return amounted to £14,000. The company objected to the assessment on the two following grounds :—l. That the company could only be assessed in respect of its owu property ; that the shares were the property of shareholders. 2. That the property of the company consisted of mining plant, which was estimated to be of the value of fSOOO. 3. That the phras a " property of the company" used in the Act did not include the shares belonging to the shares belonging to the different shareholders. The President, in delivering the judgment, said he did not believe the Court was essentially a Court of law, but a Court of equity and good conscience. The company was liable to be taxed on the assessment of the value of their property, assuming the assessment fairly to represent that value. But the value of the property must be estimated upon the market value of the shares.—Mr. Hesketh asked, that he might be allowed to adduce evidence to show what the market value of the shares really was.—The Court held that the mauager had clearly stated the value in his return. It would be an almost impossible task to show that the market value of the shares was otherwise. Thames G.M.C.—In this case the valuation was made upon the estimate value of shares. Mr. A. E. Whitaker appeared for the company to object. Mr. Stodart was examined, and stated that the company had no property -whatever, '' except shares which they held in other gold mining companies."— The objection was allowed. Big Pump Association.—-This company was rated at £1300. Mr. A. E. Whitaker appeared for the company to object. Mr. Stodart gave evidence in this case also. He said the shares had no market value whatever. Mr. A. E. Whitaker said it was clear, according to the judgment in the Albnrnia case, as the shares were the property of the company, and they were sworn to be of no value, there was nothing to tax. The Court held that the company had other property than shares. It must be deemed to have assets, unless it was shown that it had none. To the extent of those assets it was taxable. Mr. Whitaker: That is scarcely in agreement with the judgment in the Alburnia case. Auckland Permanent Land and Investment Society — The society, in its balance-sheet for ISSO, set down its assets at £82,000. Upon this amount the Commissioner claimed to assess. Mr. Hesketh appeared for the society, and objected on the following grounds : —l. That the society was not a company •within the meaning of the Act. 2. That the shares possessed no market value ; that the sums due to investors must be deducted. If these deductions were made, the society would only be taxable to the extent of £2900. Moreover, allowance should be made on account of sums of money deposited by others with the society. Deductions should, also be made on account of loans authorised, but not paid. As to the shares, they had no standard or market value, but fluctuated from Is to £20, according to the date when they were first taken up. That the society had no property, not being allowed to accumulate. On the contrary, it was by law compelled to distribute its profits every year. That, in effect, the society stood in the position of a broker— receiving from investors, lending to borrowers. The position of the company might be likened to that of a banker receiving money on deposit from customers. This money was lent out again : he discounts bills with it. Were he to be taxed upon all his ways of investing such moneys, or would the Act allow him to put in his liability to the persons who deposited with him as an objection. The Court reserved judgment in this case. Somekvell's Buildings, Queen-street. —This block of buildings was rated at £15,000. The assessment was calculated in accordance with the clause, of the Act which provides that the value shall be estimated at fourteen times the gross rental. The trustees under the will of the late Mr. Somervell objected to this mode of estimating the value upon the following grounds : —That £15,000 was not the taxable value (14 times the gross rental) unless it were proved "that the entire block was under lease for a term exceeding one year." Mr. Hesketh, in support of the objection, said there were nine tenants in the block. Three of these had leases. The other six were weekly tenants. As the entire block was not under annual rental, the Commissioner could not assess it by multiplying the gross rental by fourteen. Therefore, the assessment must be on the market value. The market value was to be estimated. by what the property would sell for cash at auction. In this case the assessment should have been £11,000, and not £15,000. Mr. Culpan was examined, and deposed to the facts stated by the learned counsel. The Court, in giving judgment, held, that the Commissioner had no right *5n this case to assess the property at fourteen times the annual rental, unless the entire property were leased for a term exceeding a year. Objection allowed. !