The Gazette 1952-1955

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. 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. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SOLICITORS

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