TAXING GIFTS

Otago Witness, Issue 3526, 11 October 1921, Page 37

TAXING GIFTS

AN INTERESTING CASE. WELLINGTON, October 4. The Full Court was occupied with the consideration of an appeal by the Bank of Now Zealand against the assessment of the amount of stamp duty payable by the bank on a gift to one of its retiring servants. The bank contended that the gift was free from duty, and the Commissioner that it wa.s liable to a duty of 10 per cent. The case was of interest, as many other similar gifts are involved. At the nearing Sir John Findlay, K.C.. with him Mr C. : If. Taylor, appeared for the Bank of New | Zealand, and" Mr W. C. MacGregor, K.C. i (Solicitor-general) for the Commissioner of Stamp Duties. ; Sir John Findlay, for the Bank of New ; Zealand, said that the bank was not seek- \ ing to evade payment of taxation. The question for the determination of the court was as to the meaning of the words “the gift,” in section 5 of “The Death Duties Amendment Act, 1920.” That section, he said, showed that the Legislature was adopting- a new scheme of taxing gifts, and that each gift stood on its own. and was quite i independent of all other gifts, whether made within 12 months of the particular gift assessed or not. Mr MacGregor, for the Commissioner of Stamp Duties, said that it was quite true that on its face the amending Statute it 1920 did appear to tax only single gifts over £IOOO in amount, but he contended that read in conjunction with prior Acts, it was clear that all gifts made within 12 months must be taken into account, and if the ! total value, as in this c-ase, exceeded £IOOO, ! then a gift of even les3 than £IOOO was 1 liable to taxation at the rate provided in. the Aot. | It was indicated by Mr MacGregor that J if the court’s decision was in favour of ap- ; pellunt, amending legislation would be necessary. 'file court reserved its decision. October 8. The Full Court delivered judgment to-day in the case of the Bank of New Zealand versus tho Commissioner of Stamps Duties. This case was stated by the Commissioner of Taxes for tho purpose of determining whether a gift of £IOO to one of the bank's retiring employees was liable to gift duty. The court was of opinion that a gift of £IOO. was not liable to duty. It had been contended that such would not have been the intention of the Legislature; but it was quite clear that there was now no statutory provision imposing any gift duty on a gift of £IOOO or less. Appellant was allowed the costs of appeal.