STAMP DUTY ON RECEIPTS.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 16610, 6 December 1919, Page 3

STAMP DUTY ON RECEIPTS.

INTERESTING CASE AT LOWER HUTT. A case was decided at the Lower Hutt on AVednesday as to the liability of the receiver of money, in certain cases, to place duty stamps on the receipt. Isabella Moberg, for whom Mr. E. P. Bunny appeared, was charged before Mr. *W. G. Riddell, S.M., that on September 6, on receiving payment of £4, a receipt for which would bo liable to stamp duty, she did divide the amount with intent to evade the duty. Evidence was given that arrangements were made with the tenant of a house belonging to defendant that the rent of tho house—which was at first 14s per week and afterwards raised do 16s — should he paid monthly. . Payments had been made over a period of six years, and in no case for a less amount than one month's rent. . Generally the amounts had been divided into sums representing fortnightly payments, and no stamps weie placed on the receipts. The police contended that this was a breach of section 118, sub-section 3 of the Stamp Duties Act. The facts were not denied by the defendant. But Mr. E. P. Bunny quoted the case of Police v. Duncan, in which Mr. S. E. M'Carthy, S.M., had held that under another clause payments for weekly rent payablb monthly, might bo divided. The police quoted tho case of Police v. Frost, where Mr. F. V. Frazer, S.M., had held that, in that particular case, Hie stamp duty had boon evaded. To this Mr. Bunny pointed out that in the case of Police v. Frost the amounts, though divided, and each item initialled, a total had been made at the bottom of tho page of the rent book which was dated with a rubber stamp, and made the payment one transaction. ' Tho Bench drew Mr. Bunny’s attention to the fact that the payments had been divided up in fortnightly amounts when the arrangements wore for rent at a weekly rate. Mr. Bunny held that if the receiver of the money was entitled to allocate the amounts in the weeks she was entitld to allocate into any number of weeks. Mr. Riddall, S.M., stated that at first sight «one would come to the conclusion that the receiver of lump sums of money of'£4 was liable to pay stamp duty, but this was not so, and there were cases where the amounts could be provided and the receiver not bo liable to pay duty. It might be that there was some doubt as to whether the defendant was within the law in adding the two weeks together, but he was inclined to the view that even had the receipt been given for the lump sum of £4 she would not he liable for stamp duty. The case against defendant would be dismissed.—Post. ,