TO TAX, OR NOT TO TAX.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14336, 5 April 1910, Page 6

TO TAX, OR NOT TO TAX.

[BY TELEGRAPH.— PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

".'"''•■ Wellington, Monday. Judgment was given in the Supreme Court to-day by. the Chief Justice in the case of Rhodes and others v. the Commissioner of Taxes. The action concerned the Heaton Park Estate, which was divided and sold in lots. Many of the purchasers had obtained possession of the land, but had notpaid 15 per cent, of the' purchase money. 1 The exact position in which they stood was fully known to the Commissioner of Taxes. The amounts due were returned as unpaid purchase money owing, and the lands were not returned as owned by plaintiffs. No information was .withheld from the Commissioner of ' Taxes.-, • and it is admitted that the transactions were entered into in good faith, and not for the purpose of evading taxation.- Acting under the powers he possessed under the Land and Income Assessment Act,, the Commissioner assessed the plaintiffs as liable to pay mortgage tax on the unpaid purchase moneys, and the taxes assessed were unpaid. This was the course followed in 1907 and 1908. _ In 1909 the Commissioner amended his previous assessments, and he claims he had a right to do so. His. Honor pointed out that section. 16 of the Act empowered the Commissioner to exempt from one class of taxation " where less than 15 per cent, of the purchase money had been paid, in •any' such case the decision c.f the Commissioner shall be final and conclusive." It was therefore not competent for him to revise his decision under the section; of the Act. which allows him to amend, for the proposed amendment was reversing a decision that was declared to be final and conclusive." The second contention was the more important one. Had the purchasers possession aj purchasers, or were they lessees? His Honor held : thev were not lessees. Judgment was given for; the plaintiffs, with costs.! •■ ' ■•;•'•'■•'. ;■>*