APPEAL COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXIII, 16 March 1926, Page 8

APPEAL COURT.

A-TAXATION CASE. felegraph— : Frfcss Association. WELLINGTON, March 16. The first case tins year occupying the attention of the Appeal Court k- the Commissioner of laxes (appellant) against William Richard Doughly» respondent. . "V The- Court- comprised- Justices Sim Stringer, and MacGregor. The case was stated on appeal by the Stipendiary -Magistrate, under the Land and Income -‘■Tax Act, 1916, the case being filed in -the Magistrate’s Court, Wellington, under provisions of Section. 23 of the Act - mentioned, and heard at ;tlie end -of'-May, 1924, by the Magistrate, who on October 24, 1924, confirmed.. tbej.. assessment. (that had been made by the Commissioner of Taxes;-, t Tljen notice of’appeal.-was: filed, mid the qhestipiv ;of Jaw for the determination of : tfte Court ipas-whether, on-the'.facts as' t they ’ sliou iT be determined by /the Supxeme-;€lo«rt.'' Ddughty was assessable in .any, . and .in what- respect, for income ,f;nx op..tiie.,6aJetipf the,business of the George ; ap dDoUghty Coir) pa ny, called (a|id ; ; P,bixgh't.v, J-Ltil.' " V:BlipsiiiijritVtp anjtagceement f >wh)eh .was exhibited- ija.r'-pqjiC.'t.,the, present eht;.. .Willijyji) ;V.Ripf)ar ; d 1 .Doughty i .was , by; Wellington aiid e]sewhere -as:,a ’ wholesale .' soft goods merchant-: ‘.and 'draper/. ;ip: ' partnership with-bir.thHj-;- Jbtiii Gspipsfttbe fespbndent< .;>yiijh - i)jn., ; l|iphftfji 'Odhgljtyf, .4WW wiih Artlilir job n Oriirge. The :respo n deht',' aiitf' ‘li is. V partner f .agreed, ■; to Cjebfcge' fasj W; gbirig tdhcerh.-Witli’ etb. . The price wii? ;£58;383 : 6s ’;j^i r was;paid.: in cash',' and,; ! fi),llv •paid; ;i)I>; Sh r ates, : . Vbeypg kup'i)bted;’to' bp nji:i.their,; fa,ee- yahifli Respoiidcnt! yya'sV then assessed., bv, 'anrtHft jft.'/pr ‘incline ifax< iry’respcpt.'df i £fG;piQ, bpirig, h ; s}-;ifTppprtipnat<? ~ shake pf, .the •- the sum: sd;' paidflby the -.company. fpr - the sfotk 'i n iralle.Valid' the; estimated cost of'such stock , in, trade. • Rdspondbiit 'iphjbctedito the ..assessment, and .appealed' to .the Supreme Coprt; .".V‘ ’ ; ‘ The,, appellant ;copterided that the difference; bdtwe°ti the price, £43.357 15a 10d and ssßi3s3.‘6syib<£ I'.w**-' profit, or gain, which was assessable for income tax, • , Thp- Chief Just’ce (Sir Robert Stout) decided tflst . tile, tfansav-tipn was not ghin from a;sh.le, nor profit deriveW from' business. , TJie Subrethe ’CoUrt held it must follow tlie decision in tbe-'Aiistrnlinn case and disallow - tbe .'.lVlat: “trate’s nssessrnent. Against this 4,he' Comnlissiohes of G' viow annealine - Decision was’ reserypd. ' " agaslLk.v