COURT OF APPEAL

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18544, 3 May 1922, Page 6

COURT OF APPEAL

PAYMENT OF LAND TAX. CPn United Press Association.) ‘ WELLINGTON, Ma|y 2. . The Court of Appeal heard argument this afternoon in the case of Henry, Alexia Charles versus Edmund William Lysons and others, an appeal from the judgment of Mr Justice Reed at New Plymouth. The appellant purchased a farm in Taranaki from the respondents, and the agreement for the sale and purchase contained an agreement that ,811 rates, taxes, and other outgoings should be apportioned to July 1, 1920. The dispute arose as to whether the words “taxes and other outgoings” included “land tax.” The respondents contended that “land tax” was included, and claimed from the appellant the sum of £lO6 16s lOd, being the proportion of land tax alleged to be payable by the appellant. Mr Justice Reed gave judgment in favour of the respondents for the full amount claimed, and against this judgment the appeal was lodged. Mr ML Myers, for the respondents, raised the preliminary point as to whether the appeal was in time. Decision was reserved on this point. Mr A. Grav, K.C., in opening argument tor the appellant, said that the case wa l important because it involved an interpretation of a (judicial decision that land tax •was apportionable. He contended that the Land and Income Tax Act of 1916, section 162, prohibited any apportionment. The person who owned land on March 31, 1920, was liable, he contended, for the whole land tax of that year, even if he settled on April 1, 1920, and he could not contract himself out of that liability. Mr Myers, for the respondents, said that if Mr Gray’s contention was correct a man might purchase land on April 1, 1919, and sell on March 30, 1920, and yet escape all land tax. Such a result was not equitable, and the_ court would not hold such to be law, if it could help doing so. The agreement for the apportionment of taxes in the present case did not offend against section 162 of the Land and Income Tax -Act. The apportionment of the land tax would not affect the incidence of the tax at all. Argument is unfinished.