WOOLSTON TANNERIES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22356, 1 September 1934, Page 14

WOOLSTON TANNERIES

The House of Representatives devoted most of yesterday morning’s sitting to the consideration of a Standing Committee’s report unfavourable to the petition of the managing director of Woolston Tanneries, Ltd., for a refund of income tax to a very considerable amount for the period prior to the removal of the embargo 1 on the export of hides. A similar petition has been presented to Parliament on several previous occasions, and on some at least of these has been recommended by the committee that dealt with it to the favourable notice of the Government. These recommendations of l the past have, however, been ignored by successive Governments for the reason, it may be surmised, that two commissions composed of judges of the Supreme Court have, upon investigation, held that the company had no legal claim to the redress which it seeks. It is probably not now contended by the company that it has any legal right to a refund of the taxation that was paid by it. And no doubt it is realised by it that there is no department of State that is as much a law to itself as the taxation Department is. But it is claimed by it, and it was strongly argued on its behalf yesterday, that it possesses a moral and equitable claim that merits sympathetic consideration. The history of the claim dates back to the time of the war, when the Woolston Tanneries were subjected to Government control, and when the management co-operated loyally and wholeheartedly with the Board of Trade in securing that during a period of the existence of an embargo on the expoit of hides, and a period also of inflated values, the prices of boots and shoes were maintained at a reasonable level. The removal of the embargo apparently imposed upon the company a very serious loss, estimated at £IOO,OOO, and it is contended that it would have avoided this loss if its operations had not been subject to Government con-

trol, and if it had been as free as other companies to conduct its business to its own advantage. Whether the loss which it has suffered is attributable to its public spirited action during the war is a question that should admit of settlement by any independent tribunal guided to its conclusion by considerations of equity and justice. The company'has been held to have no legal claim to redress, and it has been unsuccessful with frequent appeals to Parliament, although in the majority of instances it has gained favourable recommendations from parliamentary committees. Quite clearly from the persistence with which it is pressing its claim the company entertains a strong sense of grievance. In all the circumstances the issue is surely one that might suitably form the subject of reference to an arbitral tribunal the conclusion of which should be accepted as final.