81 / 266
EXAMINATION RESULTS
STAMP DUTIES
At the Preliminary Examination for intending
apprentices to solicitors, held on 30th and 31st
days o f March, the following passed the examination
and their names are arranged in order o f merit:
Niall C. Gibbons, Gordon A. Holmes, Francis
Cecil Quinn.
6 candidates entered ; 3 passed.
The remaining candidates are postponed.
A t the Final Examination for apprentices to
solicitors, held on the 30th and 31st days of March
and 1st day o f April, the following passed the
examination and their names are arranged in order
o f merit: Leo J. Loftus, Cornelius Riordan,
Kenneth Burgess Henderson, John M. McEvoy,
Joseph M. L. Dockery, Thomas J. Mullaney, Ernan
Rory O’Connor, Henry J. A. Lafferty, Edith E.
M. Keaney, Daniel J. Courtney, John A. O’Meara,
Margaret Magan, Mathias Buchalter.
20 candidates entered; 13 passed.
The remaining candidates are postponed.
The Council has awarded a Special Certificate to
Leo J. Loftus.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
SOLICITORS
B
y
Order dated the 20th day o f March
1953
the
Chief Justice directed that the name o f Charles B.
Phillips who formerly practised at 58 Merrion
Square, Dublin, should be struck off the Roll
following his conviction o f a criminal offence on
1 6th Ju ly, 1947.
B
y
'
Order dated the
27th
day o f March
1953
the
Chief Justice directed that the name o f Patrick J.
Skehan who formerly practised at
34
Lower Abbey
Street, Dublin, should be struck off the Roll on a
report from the Statutory Committee finding him
guilty o f professional misconduct.
B
y
Order dated the 27th day o f February 1953 the
Chief Justice directed that the name o f John J.
Walshe who formerly practised at Kiltimagh, Co.
Mayo, should be struck off the Roll on a report from
the Statutory Committee finding him guilty of
professional misconduct.
B
y
Order dated the 27th day o f March 1953 the
Chief Justice directed that the name o f Edward
G. L. Ward who formerly practised at Dundalk
should be struck off the Roll on a report from the
Statutory Committee finding him guilty of pro
fessional misconduct.
The following Memorandum has been submitted
to the Revenue Commissioners :—
(1) Before the passing o f the Finance (No. 2)
Act 1947 the promoters of a company about to be
formed frequently took a conveyance o f property
intended for the company. This conveyance was
charged with the 1%
ad valorem
duty and the
property was subsequently conveyed from the
promoters to the company, the deed bearing a
fixed duty o f 10 -. Since the Finance (No. 2) Act
1947 new difficulties have arisen. In the first place
the promoters themselves may or may not be Irish
citizens although the company, when formed, will
be an Irish body corporate, and the promoters may
not be in a position to give the certificate required
by the Finance (No. 2) Act 1947. Consequently,
the 25% duty may be chargeable although more
than 51% o f the capital of the company will be held
by Irish citizens. Even if a certificate can be given
so that the conveyance to the promoters will pay
duty at only 3% the practice has been altered to
the disadvantage of the tax payer by the abolition
of the fixed duty o f 10 - on the conveyance from
promoters to company, when formed. The present
practice is to treat the second conveyance as a
separate transaction chargeable with
ad valorem
duty. What is in reality one transaction is now
regarded as two and
ad valorem
duty is charged on
each. It seems reasonable to submit that if property
is acquired by promoters as agents for a company
about to be formed, the same property being
conveyed by deed shortly afterwards to the company
when formed, there is in reality only one purchase
and that it is an undue imposition on the tax payer
to charge
ad valorem
duty twice over. The Council
are aware that the liability for double duty can be
avoided by various devices. One of these is to
obtain a contract for sale between the vendors and
the promoters and to have the property conveyed
directly from the vendors to the company on
formation. This procedure, while feasible on paper,
has many practical disadvantages. One o f these
disadvantages is that the vendors may in some cases
be unwilling to enter into such arrangement.
Flaving regard to the inconvenience and unfairness
o f charging duty twice on what is really one trans
action the Council submit that the law should be
changed in the coming Finance Act. Their sug
gestion is that the law should be amended to provide
that where there has been a conveyance o f property
to the agents or promoters of an unformed company
on which
ad valorem
duty has been paid, the subse
quent conveyance to the company should be
7 9