97 / 266
dum submitted by the Council which was printed in
the April issue o f the Society’s Gazette :—
5th May, 1953.
“ I am directed by the Revenue Commissioners to
refer to your letter of the 1 6th March, 1953 (Reference
S/i 53) regarding the stamp duty :
(1) on conveyances of property to persons
promoting companies, followed by convey
ances from those persons to the companies
when formed, and,
(2) on conveyances of property to charities and
religious communities.
With regard to the instruments mentioned at (1)
above, I am to say that where each conveyance is
tantamount to a completed conveyance on sale or
voluntary disposition
inter vivos
the Commissioners
cannot accept the contention that
ad valorem
duty
should be paid on one of the instruments only. It
will be borne in mind that in these cases there
appears to be no legal obligation on the company to
take a conveyance o f property from the promoters
merely because the promoters have acquired the
property with the intention of vesting it in the
company when formed. In all the circumstances
the Commissioners are o f opinion that no further
relief should be provided in the matter beyond that
contained in subsections (4) and (5) o f Section 58 of
the Stamp Act, 1891. If, in any instance, the
conveyance to the company is not by way of sale or
voluntary disposition
inter vivos
the instrument will
not attract
ad valorem
convey nee duty and will
normally be chargeable with the fixed duty o f ten
shillings only.
With regard to the instruments mentioned at (2)
above, I am to say that since the 25 per cent, rate
o f stamp duty was imposed no case has come to
notice where duty was chargeable at that rate on a
(onveyance or transfer to a charity or a religious
community. In the absence o f concrete evidence
that a liability to the duty is arising in practice in these
cases, the Commissioners do not feel that they are
in a position to consider what amendments of the
law, if any, would be desirable or feasible in the
matter.”
DEATH DUTIES—VALUATION OF
UNQUOTED SHARES IN PRIVATE
COMPANIES
T
he
following letter has been received from the
Revenue Commissioners, Estate Duty Branch :—
1 6th April, 1953.
“ I am directed by the Revenue Commissioners to
acknowledge receipt o f your letter of the 10th
instant, and to say that they fully appreciate the
necessity of facilitating the legal profession in the
extraction of grants of probate or administration
with the minimum of delay. The valuation of
unquoted shares not infrequently requires a great
amount of consideration, and it is consequently very
often difficult to dispose of it without a certain
amount of delay.
The Commissioners do not object to accepting
provisional valuations of such shares in the first
instance, and to leaving the final valuation over until
after the grant has issued, but they consider that
any provisional valuation suggested to them should
be a figure related to the company’s earnings and
capital position, and that par valuation should not
be submitted as a matter o f course, unless it is
intended to maintain that the value for Estate Duty
does not, in fact, exceed that amount.
It is particularly desirable that agreement as to
values should be arrived at in the first instance, in
cases where there is not a large amount o f duty
involved. In the larger estates, a provisional
valuation will be accepted, but the Commissioners
are not prepared to bind themselves to make an
assessment on any figure that may be submitted to
them, without taking any account o f the actualities
of the situation.”
CURRENT LEGAL LITERATURE
Appeal from Administrative Tribunal by Declara
tion : “ Bernard
v.
National Dock Labour Board ”
(I.L .T .
9 May, 1953).
Accession to the Crown—Law of—(Farran)—
[Mod.L.R.,
April, 1953].
Cave Canem—(I.L .T ., 25th April and 2nd May,
1953
)-
Citation of Unreported Authorities (I.L.T ., 9th May,
1953
)*
Company Transmission of Shares—“ Morgan
v.
G ra y ” (L .T ., 1st May, 1953).
Conditions and Warranties in the Sale of Good,
Acts—II—(Stoljar)—
[Mod. L .R .,
April, 1953].
Dispute between Husband and Wife : Declaration
o f Trust (L .T ., 2nd April, 1953).
Duty to give Reasons for Decision—“ Sullivan
v.
Sullivan” (1947) P.—(L .T ., 15th May, 1953).
Estate Duty and Settlements : “
Re
Chapman’s
Settlement” —L .T ., 17th April, 1953.
Estoppel by Election : “ Rosenfeld
v.
Newman ”
(L .T ., 1 8th April, 195 3)-
Failure to call Witness
(I.L .T .,
9th May, 1953).
Hire Purchase Act—Warranty of Fitness : “ Dunphy
v.
Blackhall Motor Co.”
(I.L .T .,
9th May, 1953).
Inconsistencies and Injustices in the Law of Hus
band and Wife (Kahn-Freund)
(Mod. L .R .,
April,
T
953
)-
9