PROPERTY SALE APPEAL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18080, 3 May 1922, Page 8

PROPERTY SALE APPEAL.

DISPUTE OVER LAND TAX. QUESTION OF APPORTIONMENT. [BY TELEGRAPH PRESS ASSOCIATION.! WELLINGTON. Tuesday. Tho Court of Appeal heard argument this afternoon in tho case of Henry Alexis Charles versus Edmund William Lysnar and others, an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Reed! at New Plymouth. The appellant purchased a farm in Taranaki from tho respondents and the agreement for sale and purchase contained an agreement that all rates and taxes and other outgoings should be apportioned to the first day of July, 1920. A dispute arose as to whether the words " taxes and other outgoings" includod "land tax." Tho respondents contended that i " land tax" was included and claimed from tho appellant the sum of £106 16s lOd, being tho proportion of land tax ' alleged to be payable by the appellant. 1 Mr. Justice Reed gave judgment in favour 1 of tho respondents for tho_ full amount ' claimed and against this judgment the ' appeal was lodged. Mr. M. Myers, for tho respondents, • raised a preliminary point as to whether ' tho appeal was in time. Decision was 1 reserved on this point. 1 Mr. A. Gray, K. 0., in opening argument for the appellant, said the case • was an important one because it involved 1 an interpretation of a judicial decision > that land tax was apportionablo. Ho otto--1 tended that the Land and Income Tax • Act, 1916, section 162, prohibited any 1 apportionment. ' Tho person who owned • the land on March 31, 1920, was liable, ■ ho contended, for the whole land tax of 1 that year even if he sold on April 1,1920, 1 and he could not contract himself out of ' that liability. Mr. Myers, for the respondents, said • that if Mr. Gray's contention was correct t a man might purchase laud on April 1, J 1919, and sell on March 30, 1920, and yet J escape all land tax. Such a result was J not equitable and the Court would not f hold such to bo the law if it could help 3 doing so. Tho agreement for tho apporr- tionment of taxes in the present case did i not offend against section 162 of the Land i and Income Tax Act. Tho apportionment' 3 of land tax would not affect the incidence • of tho tax at all. ~ The case has not equduded.