THE WAIRARAPA STANDARD TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1876.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume 5, Issue 412, 11 April 1876, Page 2

THE WAIRARAPA STANDARD TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1876.

If only for the purpose of shewing that there are imposts more inquisitional and oppressive than ad valorem and protective duties some information relative to the Land, Property, and Income Tax Bill of the M’Culloch Ministry may be found desirable. It is desirable for another reason, as the time cannot now be distant when some measure of the kind will be sure to engage the attention of the New Zealand Parliament. To the person who takes the necessary trouble to make a full enquiry, nothing strikes him with more force than the fact that a great deal can be bo said on both sides of any question This is more particularly the case with income taxes and ad valorem duties. Both imposts theoretically appear fairer and more just than any othei that could be levied ; but practically they have often been found to be the reverse. Whether this is owing to a defect inherent in these systems, or arises from the imperfect way they have been carried out, is another question ; but this is certain that both imposts hitherto have pressed severely on the honest and only lightly on the dishonest taxpayer or trader. In the same paper from which we obtain information relative to Sir James M'Culloch’s scheme of taxation we find it stated that an accusation has been made against a large importing firm in Melbourne of defrauding the Customs by means of duplicate invoices. There can be no doubt that a system of ad valorem duties offers a great temptation in this direction. This is not only a fraud on the revenue, but is a still greater injustice to the honest trader. An income tax offers equal facilities and temptations to make dishonest returns, and consequently an impost'which looks theoretically most fair, is frequently found practically to be most unjust.

We arc indebted for the information we are about to furnish to a leading article in the Melbourne Leader, a journal violently opposed to the Bill itself, and still more so to the Ministry by whom it has been introduced. The bill consists of thirty-six clauses, which embody the machinery for carrying the tax into operation, and three schedules, which specify the nature and amount of the impost, together with a form of oath of secrecy for the commissioners and other officers appointed to give effect to the measure. Two Commissioners of Taxes, namely, the Under-Secretary and the Under-Treasurer, are appointed to direct and control all things and persons necessary for assessing the taxes prescribed by the bill. There are also to be Commissioners of Appeal, who are to hear and decide objections against the assessment ; these are the Commissioners of Audit. There is, however, an appeal to be allowed from their decision, if the taxpayer is dissatisfied with it, to a judge of the Supreme Court sitting in Chambers. The Commissioners of Taxes are employed to appoint such other officers under them as may be necessary for the proper and complete working of the measure. All these, it is provided, shall make oath before a magistrate not to divulge any information which they may .obtain in the performance of their duties ; and for any violation of this oath a penalty is prescribed of a sum not exceeding £IOO, to be recovered summarily before two justices of the peace. Clause nine directs that every person liable to the tax, either on his own account, or as the agent or trustee of others, shall, on receiving notice from the Commissioners, “ prepare and deliver, or send by post, in a registered letter, to the person appointed to receive the same, a true and correct statement in writing, in such form as may be provided for by regulations, of the several particulars required to be known respecting the annual value of all lands in his possession which are to bo taxed, and the amount of net profits or gains arising to such person on his own account, or otherwise, after deducting the exemptions allowed by the act.” In the case of incomes derived, not from property, but from the exercise of professions, trades or other callings, the average of the net profits during the three years preceding the assessment shall be taken as the basis of the amount of the tax to be levied. But if the person so charged can show that the profits of the twelvemonth fall short of the amount thus fixed, the assessment is to be amended accordingly, and a refund of the overcharge made. Clauses eleven twelve, and thirteen are intended to make the tax reach absentees. The last of the three is the most important, and is very comprehensive in its wording, so as to leave no possible loophole for escape. Briefly, its purport is that all agents or trustees in the receipt of moneys, rents, profits or gains, on account of shall send in a statement and statutory declaration of the annual amount to the commissioners, in order that these others (the principals) may be duly charged. Clause eleven declares that temporary absentees who oi.ly leave the colony for occasional residence elsewhere are to be subject to the income tax in the same way as if they had not absented themselves, and were still resident here; whilst clause twelve makes liable to the assessment all those who reside for a time in Victoria (not less than six months), and who derive their inco i e from any possessions or securities elsewhere than in the colony. Finally, married women who have property of their own, or who cany on any trade or business on their own account, and who have the profits or gains for their sole and separate use, are also to come under the operation of the act, if their incomes reach the taxable amount.

Such is the outline of a measure which has been exciting more discussion in Victoria than the Abolition of the Provinces Bill did with us. It should be understood that the Bill is only intended

to .apply to incomes; above £5<X) a year, \ no doubt with the view of disarming tno | hostility of the groat mass of the population which will thus bo exempted from its provisions. This will render the proposal more popular than it would other- , wise be ; but we cannot see any good roa- j son why persons having incomes of say .€3OO and £'4oo a year should not bo t axed. ; The Bill has passed the Lower House, but whether it will pass the Upper one in its present shape is, we should think, extremely doubtful

Tub Board .of Trade tor the Dominion of Canada has adopted, by twenty-three j votes against fourteen, a resolution favoring the extention of the principle of protection, which for many years has formed a characteristic of Canadian tariffs. “ It is not the French population alone or chiefly which is protectionist.” plaintively pleads the Times. “ Some of the leading advocates for the artificial fostering of ‘ home industry’ are of British origin, and the interests which are to benefit by the proposed legislation are principally directed by men of the same race. Even Englishmen and Scotchmen who have grown up in our free trade pale, and have been tanght to believe that the exploded doctrine could not be honestly held by an intelligent person, find excuses for a reconsideration of their opinions when they settle in the new country.” In intimate connection with this subject we may mention that the export tables of the Colony of Victoria show the strides it is making in manufacturing enterprise. Leather and leatherware were exported to the tune of £248,543, while the imports only amounted to £122,446. The exports of saddlery and harness amounted to £11,500, and the imports to £6,887 only. The exports of agricultural machinery amounted to £22,215, while the imports only reached £12,612. The exports of carriages and carts are valued at £10,596, while the imports were only £3,937. The Leader says “ These few examples show pretty conclusively how we are getting on, and should silence croakers over the fancied baleful influence of protective duties on our import and export trade ”