A. QLOTHITCE.I

95

8.—5.

An improvement, in the eyes of the: law, may be a detriment in fact ? —Yes, particularly in tussock country. And yet in valuing you allow for improvements which may have been, in fact, injurious ?— Sometimes that has occurred. Is that right ? Mr. Clark : It is a mistake on the part of the valuer. Witness : Even in such cases the same valuer will make the same mistake in the whole erf his district, so that one farmer does not suffer as against another. But he docs suffer as compared with a farmer in another district under another valuer ?—Yes, that may be so. The owner has the right to object, but my experience is that people, as a rule, do not object. The, ewidence put before the assessor is that there are fifty farmers in the district who have not objected to the. valuations, and therefore he will weigh that evidence as against the two who have objected ?—That is so. The way to deal with that is by an alteration in the: Valuation of Land Act, and instead of dealing with the objections sent in, to have a Board to review the whole lot. There is some sort of provision to that effect now in the Valuation of Land Act. The local body can object, and that also gives the right to have many valuations revised. But it is a proviso which is very seldom exercised. In point of fact, if only structures were regarded as improvements—buildings, fences, sheep-dips, and yards—much greater accuracy woulel be obtained. If all improvements were ignored except visible structures, would not there be much greater accuracy in the valuations ? —ln some cases the valuations would be much simplified, because thousands eif acres are simply ring-fenceel and you would simply value the fencing. Would it on the whole make it more accurate ? —lt would make the valuations more level. You think it is a fair thing that a company should be regarded as an individual for taxation purposes ?—Yes. But not absolutely so ? —ln what way ? You approve of the small shareholder getting a rebate if he does not get sufficient dividend ? — Yes, if the: deduction inflicts any hardship upon him. But there is already provision for him. Getting less money than you would, otherwise get is always a hardship ; it is only a matter of decree ? Mr. Clark : Receiving less money than you ought to receive woulel not be a hardship under the section. But in orelinary English it is emly a matter of degree: ? (Witness) Nei; Ido not quite agree with you there. Take what lam best acquainted with, the: Public Service Superannuation Fund : you have a certain amount taken from your salary every month, and you never see it, and so you do not miss it. If you take a man getting £500 a year and paying 10 per cent, superannuation contribution, he knows that his monthly cheque is based on only £450. Then yen would not agree that getting less than you woulel otherwise: get is not a hardship ? — It is very hard when it is taken away. But if you do not get as much as you would otherwise, get, you do not regard it as a hardship ? —No. But I gather from your written evielence that you would advocate a flat rate for companies as for individuals ? —Yes. Any deficiency in revenue could be made up by a slight alteration. Mr. Hunt.] On. the land-valuation question, Mr. Clothier, I understood you to say to Mr. Be>gg that you did not find it difficult to value improvements ? —Not visible improvements. But you admit that it is difficult to value invisible improvements ? -No. A man toerft up 250 acres of heavy, wet, swampy, clay land in its unimproved state, He broke it in by first putting sixty thousand tiles in drains, and put in one mile anel a half of timber drains. He crossed that with ploughed drains. He ploughed and subseiiled the whole, thing, and put on 3 tons of lime per acre, and top-dressed it for three Or four years. How woulel you arrive at the value of those improvements ? You would not be able to see the drains or subsoil ? —You could not, because, the man had spent in draining more than the land was worth. You think the land was not worth it when it was done ?—No. As a matter of fact, you arc wrong there, because it was worth it. He took some years to do it, and when it was done it was revalued, and the unimproveel value: went up four times ?—That is cine of the cases with which it is difficult to deal. You could not see, the tiles or subsoiling, or the lime, or the manure ? —lt would be like valuing a house from the outside. You admit that you could not see the improvements in that case: ? —That is so. The emly remedy preivided by the Act is to appeal to the Assessment Court. Could the Assessment Court see the improvements ? -They could judge from the evielence given before the Court. It is not necessary for the Court to see everything they decide upon. Mr. Shirtcliffe.] With regard to land-valuation, do you think it woulel be better if the- lanel; valuation were based on the earning-capacity of the land less the value of the visible improvements ? Would that be, helpful to valuers and lead to greater accuracy in any direction ? 1 think not, because so much depends on the inelividual skill and knowledge, eif the farmer. Still, would, you as a valuer be able tei judge as to the earning-capacity of the lanel if properly farmed ? —Yes, and our valuers are able to do so. Mr. Clark : They take that into consideration now. Mr. Shirtcliffe.] Yes, but the value of the invisible improvements comes into the matter. I am asking the witness whether it would be better to have the valuation based upon the earningcapacity of the land if properly farmed less the value of the visible improvements such as structures