57 / 112
DECEMBER, 1909] The Gazette of the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.
53
Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the 1st of
October the Chancellor of the Exchequer
brought-up an amendment to that provision.
The amendments that he then brought up are
now embodied in Clause 61 of the Bill. Under
this amendment the old basis of valuation is
to remain unaltered in all yearly tenancies,
but the tenant purchasers get no relief from
the change, save in cases where the gross
assets do not exceed £500. Of course it is
clear that this amendment was to a great
extent a relief from that provision, but it has
not gone far enough, for the effect of the Bill
as it now stands with that amendment would
be that all tenant purchasers whose gross
assets, including their holdings after deduct
ing the amount due to the Land Commission
in respect of the annuity, exceeded £500, will
not get any relief under that amendment in
Clause 61, and they will be obliged to pay
not only the increased Death Duties set out
in
the Schedule
to
the Bill, but
those
increased duties on the holdings which, before
such provision became law, would not have
been liable to contribute anything in the way
of duty, or if anything, something very small.
That is one matter I would like to call atten
tion to, because, as I say, it was a provision
. which no ordinary person reading the Bill
could understand
(hear, hear), and
that
provision the Council, as I said, call special
attention to in their resolution of the 28th
July, and subsequent to the circulation of
that resolution the amendment was made
(applause).
There is another matter which I would
like
to
refer
to
in
this Bill.
It may
never pass.
It does not really require a
prophet to state that it will probably be
rejected on the present occasion ;
but what
has once been brought before the House of
Commons and passed may come before it
again, and I think the members of our
profession ought
to direct special public
attention, so far as we can, to those pro
visions which, as I have already stated, are
not clear to any ordinary person who may
refer to the Bill. The other point referred
to is the question of the re-valuation of all
the land in Ireland and, .of course, in the
United Kingdom. While that valuation is
going on sales must to a great extent be tied
up; and this affects each member of our
profession, because if you are acting for a
purchaser, as I understand it, you will be
unable to complete that purchase until the
increment duty
is cleared—that
is, was
paid if it is payable, or if it was agricultural
land and held as such, to be exempted, you
would have to get a certificate to that effect.
But you could not get that until the land is
valued by the Government Department, and
you know how many years it will take to get
all the land valued in Ireland. But, apart
from the delay and the loss of carrying
tlrrough
such
transactions, you find
all
land in Ireland is to be valued, including
agricultural land. We have been told that
agricultural land will be free from increment
duty, but this is not clear at all from the
Bill—it does not say so. What it says is
that if it can be shown that agricultural land
is of no greater value, no higher value than
its value for agricultural purposes, in that
case only it is exempt. But the onus of
showing it comes within that exemption will
rest upon the owner, and if agricultural land
is being used, say, for a stud farm, then it
becomes liable to increment duty, and no
abatement on that duty will be made in
respect of the portion of the value which
represents the agricultural interests in that
holding—it will be liable as if it had no
agricultural value, for the entire duty. Of
course, also, if it is near a town, or, I fancy,
for any reason that an increased price was
given for agricultural land, I think that
increment duty would be payable in respect
of it. And we were also told that the Govern
ment will pay the expense of making this
valuation ;
but I think you have heard of
the British Treasury, and I think you know
something of it, and can you conceive that
the British Treasury would go to the expense
of making that valuation without getting any
revenue in return ?
I cannot. Besides this in
crement duty which would be charged upon
what we always popularly knew as agricul
tural land, when this valuation is completed,
and the site value and the total valuation of
the land ascertained under the provisions of
this or any similar Bill all Imperial taxes will
be levied in respect of that land on that
valuation.
Income tax in the future will be
levied on that valuation, and not on the old
Poor Law Valuation. You know that at
present the Commissioners of Valuation has
no power to alter the valuation on land, but