South Canterbury Times. THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1885

South Canterbury Times, Issue 3817, 2 July 1885, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1885

There is a general disposition everywhere to effect a reform of what the Chancellor of the Exchequer, addressing the Honse of Commons in bis recent Budget Speech, designated the “ death duties,” Such a reform will be generally approved. A tax of this kind really hurts nobody, and it is placed where it can be easily borne .In England there are now four taxes which are imposed on property devolving by death, namely (1) probate duty; (2) account duty ; (3) legacy duty ; (4) succession duty. Successions to personal property, including leasehold property, under will or intestacy, and personal property passing under voluntary deeds, are liable to two or three taxes —probate or account duty, and legacy or succession duty ; whereas personal property passing by marriage settlement, and succession to real property, are liable to one tax only, viz., succession duty. The last Budget remedied this anomalous state of things by imposing a duty on all property passing from one person to another at death, whether by will or by settlement, It proposed too, that in the case of personal property settled on a husband or wife with remainder to children, the duty should be , paid once and for all ; and that a rate of three per cent should be imposed on all legacies charged by way of annuity on real property. These proposals appear to have commended themselves to the House as all-round "and equitable ones. The Chancellor, however, saw that the tax could not in every instance be paid in the same manner. Probate and account duties are now payable by law within six months from the date of death, but practically it is found by experience that probate duty is paid much within the time allowed by the law, for it is the interest of the executor or trustee to take out probate as soon as possible. The Budget proposed to shorten the period of payment of account duty to three months. Legacy duty is due when the legacy or share of residue is paid to or retained for the use of the legatee. In the case of real property the tax is now payable by eight half-yearly instalments, the first of which is due 12 months after the successor becomes entitled to the beneficial enjoyment of his succession. For these eight half-yearly instalments the Chancellor proposed to substitute four annual instalments. In future real property to be enjoyed by a person absolutely, or as tenant ©ntail, was to be taxed upon the capital value, and not only on the life interest, but this tax would only have to be paid as well as the tax on charges on real estate by way of annuity in four instalments. One striking inequality remained to be adjusted. Hitherto in the matter of probate, legacy, and succession duties there had been one law for real and another for personal estate. The latter had been subject to legacy and succession duty with reference to full market value, while real estate had been taxable with reference only to its value for the life of the successor, although be might have been in a position to sell it and pocket the full market value. This inequality the Chancellor of the Exchequer said would no longer exist, it should no longer be said that real estate bears a very small and disproportionate share of the taxes. When possible sources of revenue have to be enquired into, it is fitting that inheritances should bear a part of the burden which hitherto they have not borne at all. The Hon. Mr Stout’s Bill, referred to last night in these columns is a step in the direction of reform in New Zealand, and there is room for still more reform.