The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1879.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5669, 31 May 1879, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY). SATURDAY, MAY 31, 1879.

The land tax valuation papers have now lieen issued, and so far as we have yet heard the result amply justifies all the prognostications of difficulties and complications which have yet' been made either in Parliament or in the Press. Prom numerous quarters about town complaints of errors in assessments and mistakes as to ownership have already been laid before us, and the Judges of the Assessment Court in Wellington at all, events are likely to have a busy time of it. In the instances which have come under our notice wo may state at once that the properties have been estimated at at least 25 per cent, above their present market value. It is not our intention to specify instances, they are suffidently numerous to have attracted general attention in town, and the truth of our assertion will be either aastained or disproved ere many months are passed. In England the assessed value of property for rating or taxing purposes is always reckoned to be at least -33 per cent, below the real selling values; the object of this low rate of assessment being to avoid objections. In practice, we believe that it has been found by experience to be impossible to enforce' an extreme assessment. If the property ‘ is valued at its full market value it is not by any means certain that a buyer at that price could always be found., In addition to this, even a low approximate valuation at the date of assessment may by the time the returns are issued be regarded as an extreme rate. .None but those who have had a practical acquaintance with the difficulty of collecting or enforcing a tax levied on property would, believe how difficult It is to persuade owners, that they have been fairly treated.’ We have heard of a case where after a new valuation had been completed in a country district at a con-

siderably highgr average than the preceding one, the valuer was instructed to press upon every objector this question : “ Are you prepared to sell at your as- “ sessed value 1” The valuer was a man of means, and had assured the local body, before the Court opened, that he was quite prepared to buy any property in the district whose owner would sell at the value he had put upon it.

Wo are satisfied that if the same question is asked at the Assessment Court which is to ait in Wellington under the Land Tax Act, a fair allowance being made for the improvements which are exempt, there will be any number of persons only too glad to accept a price far below the land tax assessment. This may be partly due to the depreciation of property which has taken place during the past four or five months, but if the authorities had given suitable instructions to the valuers, the present complete bungle could never have been made. It is impossible to say whether a similar rash system of valuation has been adopted elsewhere throughout the colony, but if so, there is not the least chance of the gross proceeds of the land tax amounting to more than about twothirds of the £IOO,OOO estimated. The most flagrant piece of injustice in connection with the affair, however, has yet to be pointed out. The time for receiving objections is stated upon the valuation forms to expire upon June Kith. Any person on a journey, or any person living up country, would under ordinary circumstances find it exceedingly difficult to lodge his objection 8 within the specified time. But in certain cases the difficulty is rendered quite insuperable. The Wairarapa newspapers, for instance, state that objection forms are to be procured at the sub-commissioner’s office in Wellington; but there is abs olutely not time for persons North of Castlepoiut to send for printed forms to Wellington by the usual weekly mail, and to receive them before the time fixed for lodging objections has expired. No objection is legal except upon prescribed forms, which make provision for some eight or ten different grounds of objection. Under the circumstances an objection form, ought certainly to be forwarded to every taxpayer ; the fluctuation of value in property since the valuation was made would justify this course, even if objections could be lodged in writing without a printed form being insisted upon. It might be more convenient to forward to every valuer under the Land Tax Act a number of the printed forms. This would place them within reach of the parties affected by the tax, and in the interests of the country districts action in this matter ought to be taken at once. We certainly believe that a person objecting to his valuation, who had tried for but had been unable to obtain a printed form and lodge a legal objection within the required time, would be able successfully to claim exemption from payment of the tax. The only date upon all the valuation papers which we have seen, is March Ist. They cannot possibly have been issued at that time, and we are at a loss to assign a reason for their being ante-dated in this way. One instance may be mentioned in which valuations for properties in Wanganui, Napier, and Wellington under the one date, March Ist, only reached the person affected on May 28th. Out of nine notices, for two he was not liable at all ; two more he considered were valued at almost double their real unimproved value, and several of the others were excessive. The two oases of mistaken ownership or liability for the tax involved the payment of the tax on nearly £4OOO worth of property. In several of the instances above referred to any mistakes are quite inexcusable, as rates had been previously recovered from the real owners by the City Council, and there was no question of disputed ownership. In those cases where property is held jointly by several owners, each owner is primarily liable in proportion to his share, but any one owner is also liable for the whole tax. We reprint elsewhere the clause relating to the liability of landlord and tenant. Several instances have been brought under our notice in which the joint ownership appears to have been altogether ignored, and one unfortunate has been singled out as a victim. Instances of mistakes might be multiplied almost ail infinitum; enough has been said to justify the assertion recently made by us that in regard to the laud tax all the troubles of the department are yet to come. There will be an uncommonly long bill to pay for the legal expenses of the Assessment Court, which will still further reduce the net proceeds of the tax. At the rising of the Courts, after all the objections have been heard and adjudicated upon, and all other expenses in connection with the department have been met, it is our opinion that the Colonial Treasurer of the day, whoever he may be, may think himself lucky if one-half of the promised £IOO,OOO is left in his hands. New Zealand experience of a land tax seems likely to confirm the lesson taught by the Victorian experiment in the . same direction. The “Australasian” of the 24th, which has come to hand since writing the above, sa y 3; —“Aland tax such as that which “Mr. Berry has given us is admirably “ contrived for the depreciation of pro- “ porty, but its return to the revenue is “ less than half of the estimate. Probably “ when provision has been made for the “costs of appeal even this return will be “considerably diminished.”