COMPANY TAXATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18711, 17 May 1924, Page 11

COMPANY TAXATION.

■ — ... \ ; ->;«! i ".'r' ' '' \ ! CHANGE NOT OPPOSED. LEVY ON DIVIDENDS SIMPLER DEPARTMENT'S ATTITUDE. —_ 'K TBI TELEGRAPH.—PIIE33 ASSOCIATION.] ] WELLINGTON, Friday. In the course of the proceedings of tha * Taxation Commission the Commissioned of Taxes, Mr. D. G. Clark, contradicted certain statements which have been mada from time to time to the effect that an • alteration in the assessment of companies for income tax ha 3 been opposed by the department on account of tho inconvenience it would cause. An alteration of company taxation in the direction of exempting companies altogether and assessing dividends in the hands of shareholders would, tho commissioner stated, enormously simplify the work of the department. Evidence jvas given by Sir John Find- . lay, who said he agreed with those who I thought the land tax should be abolished and a progressive income tax imt-uoetl on farmers. If there was any class of the community that deserved the indulgent consideration of the taxing authorities, it was the small farmer. If he made no profits beyond a minimum subsistence deduction, he should not pay tax. * J The retention of the graduated land tax was favoured by witness. It would be disastrous, he said, if wealthy landowners were left free, in the absence of a graduated tax, to go on aggregating holdings. The commissioner should have power to reduce o r remit tax where largo holdings were necessary owing to tnu quality or character of tho land, but only on application of tire owner, and on proof that the largeness of the holding was necessary for provable •farming and that the area was unsuitable for closer settlement. The graduated tax was never meant to apply to city lands occupied for commercial or industrial purposes, and should be limited in its operation to rural lands and to aggregation of town and suburban lands ' held for speculative purposes. Company taxation was unjust; the shareholder should be taxed on the share of the profits he took, and no tax laid upon the company itself as a company. The present difference of rates for company and local body debentures had no logical justification. As to the incidence of taxation, he felt justified in saying that tho incidence of progressive taxes was largely shifted from the taxpayer upon whom , they were imposed and upon whom they were intended to rest.