THE STAMP DUTY ON SECURITIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21736, 30 August 1932, Page 7

THE STAMP DUTY ON SECURITIES

TO THE EDITOR

Sib,—When the Bill imposing a 10 per cent stamp duty on local body securities was being passed, the following clause was included in the information published in the press throughout New Zealand: "An important additional eub-clause has been inserted to enable the Minister of Finance to refund the duty on securities held by people whose total annual income does not exceed £100." Being a married woman whose income is substantially less than £IOO. I duly made application for refund of the 10 per cent. I was taxed on a small holding of local body debentures. In reply I was forwarded a statutory declaration form to fill in, giving full information as to my income from all sources—which is reasonable enough—but also requesting me to furnish particulars of my husband's income over the same period, which is a. ridiculous request. I gave all the details required except that in regard to my husband's income, which I cannot give because he does not disclose it to me. I informed the authorities that, it they must have the information, they- couid get it from the Income Tax Commissioner. _ , • The reply was to the effect that I furnish particulars of mv husbands income, and that consideration of my application is held up pending receipt of this information, and in addition I am, informed that the provision in the'legislation is intended to provide for such cases where the income of a person is less than £IOO after taking into consideration the value of any monetary or other assistance which may be available and where the stamp duty would impose a severe hardship upon the person. The Act does not read to me that way, but if it holds good that it does, then it is putting a very wide range of power into one man s hands, and the next thing may be that' an applicant's chances of refund will depend on social standing, religion, or perhaps political colour. To demand from one taxpayer particulars of the private affairs of another is also an absurdity. A husband, may have good reasons for keeping details of his total earnings to himself, disclosing them only to the Commissioner of Taxes, and no doubt the Government has foreseen the possibility of this and utilised it to assist it in resisting claims. , If the purport of this clause in the Act is, as I am informed, to benefit only those who are very hard up, then there is no use pressing my claim further; but it may interest many other married women who possess a very small income of their own that they are not likely to get a refund if their husbands provide them with shelter and food, and it will certainly be necessary for their husbands to disclose to them every detail of their private affairs. But the Act does not seem to me to mean what the authorities read into it and, if I am wrong, then there is a dangerously wide power .left in the hands of the Minister which should certainly be curtailed. —I am, etc., Mabbied Woman. Dunedin, August 27.