BARON HIRSCH'S MILLION'S

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1509, 31 January 1901, Page 10

BARON HIRSCH'S MILLION'S

The Court of Appeal, comprising the Master cf the Rolls and Lords Justices * Collins and Stirling, gave judgment, on Dec. 8, in the case of “the AttorneyGeneral v. the Jewish Colonisation Association.’’—The Master of the Rolls said the Crown claimed estate duty at eignt per cent., and succession duty at 10 per cent.—lß per cent, in alF —upon seven millions of money given by . Barca de Hirseh in his lifetime, but subject to the life interest for himself therein, to the defendant company, and the question arose whether, in the circumstances of the case, on the death of the baron in 1896, a succession of property took place within the meaning of the Succession Duty Act of 1853. It sc, it followed that estate duty under the Finance Act of 1894 would also be payable on the property passing at the death of Barcn Hirseh,. if such property was situated out- of the United Kingdoh, winch was the position of the bulk of the seven millions involved in the appeal. In 1891 Baron de Hirseh, a domiciled Austrian, without children, with a permanent residence in Paris and a temporary one in London, conceived the idea of ameliorating the condition of certain Jews, and made, in the first instance, a donation of two millions of money. He brought out and formed in this country a limited* company, registered as the Jewish Colonisation association, to hold and advance the donation of two millions, which was then handed by the baron to the company. The association was also to hold and administer any other donations it might receive for the purpose of promoting the welfare of those Jews. In the memorandum it was provided that, if, in the event of the company being wound up or dissolved, any remaining property' - should not be distributed among the members of the company, but . be transferred to some similar inst- tution, and in default of selection b.y the members, then a judge of the High Court should make the selection. That it was an English company there could be no doubt, and as such subject to English, law, and the Master of the Rolls thought the mere fact that business was transacted out of England (the head office being in Paris) did not affect its liability to pay duty. The two millions having been given by Baron Hirseh in his lifetime, no question arose on his death in respect to it. In 1892, however, Baron Hirseh gave a further seven millions by an indenture dated l Aug. 26, 1892. l»y that deed he retained, for himself during his lifetime the interest of the property so settled. At his death the society was to hold the investments for the benefits of Russian Jews. Of- these > seven millions, cue million was in securities deposited with the London and Westminster bank in London, and the balance was held by foreign bankers, and were all investments in foreign securities. In respect of these foreign securities alone did the company contend that they were not liable. In his judgment the seven millions in respect to which duty was claimed was property liable to pav duty. The appeal failed, and would be dismissed with costs,—The Lords Justices concurred.