THE GOVERNMENT ISSURANCE OFFICES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10434, 5 May 1897, Page 6

THE GOVERNMENT ISSURANCE OFFICES.

HELD 10 BE RATEABLE PROPERTY.

MR. H. W. BRABANT'S JUDGMENT. A special meeting of the Assessment Court was held yesterdayforenoonattheMagistrate's Courthouse, when Mr. H. W. Brabant, S.M., delivered judgment on the objection by Win. J. Speight, on behalf of the Government Life Insurance Department, to the entry in the valuation list of the City of Auckland in respect ot the Department's business premises in Queen-street. Mr. Cotter appeared for the City Council, and Mr. S. Hesketh for the Government Insurance Department.

Bis Worship, in delivering judgment, ■aid:—The grounds of objection by Mr. Speight are: I. (a) lam not the owner or occupier; 1 (6) the rateable value is less than that stated. 2. There ia do such comBuny as the "Government Life Insurance ouipany, Limited." 3. The said property belongs to Her Majesty the Queen, and is therefore not rateable. 4. There are occupants of a portion of the said offices whose j names have been omitted from the list. Taking these grounds seriatim :-l. (a) The local body admits that William James Speirht is not the occupier, but asks that, " the Government Insurance Commissioner" may be inserted as occupier; (6) the objector abandons this ground. 2. The local body admits that there is no such company as that named, but asks that the Government Life Insurance Commissioner be inserted as owner. 3. The question whether the property in question is rateable is the real matter in dispute between the parties, the other questions being merely details. 4. The objector and the local body agree that the name of P. E. Cheal should be entered on the list in respect to £52 of the rateable value, and the name of Thomas Allen in respect to £24 of it. Messrs. Cheal and Allen hare been notified to attend, but have not done so, or objected. With respect to grounds 1 (o), 2, and 4.1 decide that the list may be altered as the local body desires. With respect to ground 3, the real matter in dispute, the property iu question is a brick and stone building in Queen-street, city, occupied partly by the Government Insurance Department as their office* (Mr. Speight being the local manager) and partly as offices by various tenants, ten in nnmbsr. Of these, two, Messrs. Cheal and Allen, are yearly tenants and therefore, it is allowed, rateable as occupiers. The other eight are monthly tenants, and it i> argued that neither their offices nor those of the Department are rateable because the property is owned by and vested in Her Majesty the Queen; in respect to the tenants, because under the Rating Act, 1894, the owner must be considered to be the occupier when a property is let for less than six months. On the other hand, it is contended for the local body that both the tenants and the Department's offices are rateable property, because there is an owner other than Her Majesty, viz., tho Government Insurance Commissioner or the Department, the Queen, it is argued, being merely a trustee, I have great difficulty in deciding whether as a matter of law this property is rateable or not, but on general principles I can see no reason why the Government Life Insurance Department should not pay rates on their properties in the same way that any other Life Insurance Company or Association does. The State is not in any way interested in their department of Life insurance further than this, that they guarantee payment to the policy holders. The profits which the department makes are ascertained periodically by actuaries and do not become revenue, as the profits of other departments do, but they are divisable by jaw amongst the policy holders; any rates paid, therefore, do not affect the State, but merely decrease the sum to be divided. Up to last year, I understand that the department paid rates. They objected at the Assessment Court last year, but the judge decided against them, It is admitted that the department do not claim, nor are they allowed by the Government, any other privilege or exemption. They are charged by the Government postage and telegraph rates, and though the Legislature has not directly said, they are or are not to pay rates to local bodies, yet it has by certain enactments placed the Department in other respects on the same level with life insurance companies. Under the Land and Income Assessment Acts, life insuranoe companies, including the Government Insurance Department, are liable to tax. In the Government Life Insurance Act, 1886, in the second paragraph of section 5, it is enacted," The provisions of any other Act now or hereafter in force affecting life insurance companies and rendering them liable to assessment on taxatiou shall extend and apply to such commissioner (that is the commissioner under the Government Life Insurance Acts) and the bueinets conducted by him by virtue of this Act." The Government Life Insurance Act of 1894 at section 3, enacts that "by the title of Government Insurance Commissioner the Commissioner may sue and be sued in all the actions arising out of any act, deed, matter, or thing hereafter made, omitted, entered into, done, or suffered, relating to the Government Insurance Department, by or against the Commissioner or Her Majesty the Queen, or the said department as one of the departments of the Government or the policyholders of the department as a body, and no action by the Commissioner shall be abated or dismissed by reason only that such action is brought in the name of the Commissioner. Them is also the third section of the Government Life Insurance Amendment Act of 1891. the latter part of which says: - " All rates and taxes from time to time due or payable on real property vested in Her Majesty the Queen for the purposes of the Government Insurance Department shall bo payable out of the Government Insurance account, without any further or other appropriation by the General Assembly." If no rates are to be paid, this provision as to rates would be of course useless, and the Legislature, in passing this enactment, must have had in its mind that the department was to pay rates. After referring to and reading together the whole of the law relating to Government life insurance and also the Bating Acts, I have come to the conclusion that the land and buildings, the property of the Government Insurance Department, which appear on the valuation roll of the city of Auckland are not " lands of the Crown." within the meaning of the definition of "occupier" section 2 of the Bating Act, 1894, nor are they " land vested in Her Majesty, of which there is not an owner or occupier other than Her Majesty." Her Majesty, in my opinion, only owns the land and buildings in question as trustee for the Department ia the policyholders, and " there is an owner other than Her Majesty entitled for the time being to receive the rack rent—that is the commissioner. I think therefore that the decisiou of the Assessment Court Judge Northcroft was right. I am confirmed in that opinion by the decision in the caie of the Kiwitea Highway Board and the Wanganui Harbour Board (N.Z.L.R., 3, S.C., '278). The cases are not certainly parallel, but in that case Mr. Justice Richmond said "clearly the Rating Act contemplates that the beneficial owner shall pay ratea_ notwithstanding that the land is vested in Her Majesty." Of course the learned judge referred to the Bating Act of 1882, but it will be found that the definitions of rateable property in that Act and in the Rating Act of 1894 are substantially the same. I hardly think I eould refuse to follow that case even if the deoision did not agree with my own opinion. Counsel for the objector has not convinced me that the case before me can be distinguished from that of the Kihitea Highway Board v. Wanganui Harbour Board. In that case the learned Judge appears to have based his deoision in a great measure on the fact of the Harbonr Board being entitled to the rent of the property rated, Ii this case the Insurance Commissioner is in the some sense entitled to the rent. My decision, therefore, which I have, however, come to with considerable difficulty and doubt, is that the property in question is " rateable property." I therefore further direct that the list be altered as applied for by counsel for the local body, and (1) the names of P. E. Cheal. occupier, and the Government Insurance Commissioner, owner, be entered in respect of £52 of the rateable value, less 20 per cent.; (2) that the name of Thomas Allen, occupier, and the Government Insurance Commissioner, owner, be entered in respect of £24 of the rateable value lees 20 per cent.; (3) that the Government Insurance Commissioner be entered as both owner and occupier in respect of £900 of the rateable value less the amounts entered against Messrs. Cheal and Allen.