THE SEW ZEALAND SHIPPING COMPANY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13393, 23 January 1907, Page 8

THE SEW ZEALAND SHIPPING COMPANY.

KN( d.ISi! INI'oMK TAX

1 COMPANY HUM) LiABLK I'OK WHOM; i profits. j [IKOM Cl'R OWN' ( '(>KKK<rOS'HKN I. ] London'. December 15. | I n the King'.-. Hem' h Division on .Monday, I Ire fore Mr. .lust-ice Pray. a special case came 'up for ooii.miei'iition in 'be malt**!' ol the ' New Zealand Shipping Company ver-u- t li»» Surveyor ol lax.'"-. The oiie.sl-ion raised »a- whether Ine New Zealand Shipping Company <vu->. lor income t* x purpose-', to Ix-' consiuei ed to lie an laigli-h company and therefore liable to pay income tax on the* whole of its profits, or whether ii was a New Zealand company and liable only for income tax on -ncii of it. profits as were made m the I tilled King dom. Tiie Income lax ('•.•tnniissi<tnei> held that the company cam" under the heading of an Knglish company and assesses the company oi. iibS.W. that stun being- the profit for i-be yea 190?, Mr. Sortition. K.C.. for the New Zealand Shipping Company. said i! was a company of considerable -.landing in New Zealand. Ii bad two board- of din" tors —one, in London and tlie oiler in tin- colony—the former being elected by the shareholders on the colonial register and tin? laf- r by tho-e on the I/Jndon register. But no; morn than two-thirds of the shareholders could be on the London register. The bii.-ines.- of the company was specifically allotted to the two boards, and rite colonial business was out of tin 1 control of the London board. The New Zealand board bad £1250 to be divided Im>twecn them and the London board had 000. If was a novel form of articles of association, but. tIK-r-e was no doubt- tin.' two boards were different bodies and carried on different lui-ine.^fv..

1 lie .Judge: Who lias lo do with declaring dividends';

Mr. Serin lon : The London board. Hut the management of the colonial business is at. Christchnrcli, and the most important contracts are entered into there. Proceeding. he said the Income Tax Commissioners had found that as a fact, and he therefore, submitted that, the law was that the company was not liable to pay income tax en that business. The Solicitor-General (.Sir W. S. Koh-on, K.C., M.P.) contended that the final.ciai business of the company was dealt with by the London board, and therefore the company was liable on the whole of the tits. The learned judge held the same view, dismissed the l apj>eal with costs, and eonfirmed the assessment.