G. GOULD. I

97

8.—5.

of assessment, improvements eif a value equal to one pound an acre or equal to one-third of the unimproved value, whichever is the less, and which in the- opinion of the Commissioner it is reasonable shenlel have been improved to that; extent." That is the definition of unimproved land. Of course, there is a qualifying proviso at the- end eif that section, but much erf our land in Canterbury—lightcarrying land —requires little mere than fencing to return its proper production, anel it may not want e:ve:n £1 per acre er one-third of its unimproved value spent on it to make it productive. I suggest that it would bo better if section 51 were amended tei read like this: " ' Unimproved land ' means lanel which by reason of its lack of improvement is not productive tei its reasonable capacity, having regard te> its situation and accessibility, as to which the Commissioner shall have; full exercise of his discretion." A man may have a place where the improvements may be eif small value; it may have natural boundaries, but still it may be reproductive, and in that case it is evident that it woulel be very unfair tei impose 50 per cent. e«tra tax. Then, section 59 of the Land anel Income Tax Act, 1923, says : " When twei or more persons own land in severalty but occupy it jointly, whe-thcr as partners or on joint account or otherwise, the same land-tax shall be payable by them and by each of them as if they owned the whole of the saiel land jointly, in the- proportions which the unimproved value's erf the lanels so severally eiwneel bear to one another, anel for the: purposes of this Part of this Act they shall be: deemed to be: joint owners eif those lanels accordingly. Without limiting in any way the meaning eif the term ' joint occupation,' two or more persons shall be deemed to occupy lands jointly within the; meaning eif this section if those lands are occupied, worked, or managed by any one or more of those persons on behalf of all erf them or on a joint account, or if those lards are occupied, weirked, or managed by any other person as trustee for or otherwise em behalf of-all eif those persons." 1 think that se:ction is a good deal disregarded ; but 1 maintain that as long as the various owners in an estate: take title to their properties, that limitatiem shoulel not be, imposed on them. I say that seotion 59, which debars, landowners from co-operating with one another for their mutual benefit, is monstrously unfair, and its repeal woulel not affect the principle, erf the: Act. If a large property is divided into sections amongst the members eif a family and owned severally by them, there is no sense in debarring them from working the property jointly and so economizing in weirking-expenses, provided always that the whole of each individual's interests in land are aggregated for the purpose of assessment. That is the point which 1 think is essential. I may have a section in one estate which is werkeel jointly, and I may have company interests in another laneleel property, anel I may have another estate- of my own, but as long .as my various interests are aggregated for the purpose of assessing my land-tax I think 1 am entitled to work my land to the best aelvantage as it pleases me. I can se>e nei sound reasem why the benefits of co-operation, which are enjoyed by persons in other walks of life, shoulel be denied to landowners and farmers ; in fact, farmers are always being urged to co-operate both here and elsewhere, I have always consieiered this a very unfair thing. If a man dies and leaves several children, amongst whom his estate is divided, provided each takes his own title, to his share, I do not think it is right that they should be. debarred in working their areas together for their own mutual bene;fit. A clear elistinction comes between joint eiwnership and se:veral ownership. There may be several reasons why the-,y may not like to hold property as joint owners. There may be reasons why they should be taxed as if the several sections erf an estate belonged to one party; but where each party takes title I think he shoulel be free to work his property or two or three people shoulel be entitled to weirk their properties together to the best aelvantage. One might go further and say that section 52, which also makes a freeholder liable for excess lanel-tax on any other property he leases, shoulel not be inflie;ted upon a man. If I own a property anel lease an adjoining piece erf lanel that iuelicatcs that both I and the adjoining owner think we can make more use of it in that way than he can, and I think we, should be free to elo that. It means that the man with the greater ability—the lessee will make nmre out of the land, and 1 think that it is a question which is werthy of consieleration whether that section 52 should not be amended in some way. If, as suggesteel, a flat rate for land-tax were imposed instead eif a graduated rate for land-tax, then the, difficulties which you raise would disappear. Further provision for them woulel lieunnecessary ? —Yes. I have thought that, probably for political reasons, the graduated tax woulel be departed from. There: is a further matter to which I wished to refer, although I speak of it with some diffidence—the questiem of a farmer paying lanel-tax on the amount eif his mortgage. lam aware that this is a difficult question to deal with, but it sticks in every farmer's gullet that he has got to pay land-tax on the whole erf his lanel wdien the mortgagee is taking one-third or one-half of the income from it. I am inclined to think that mortgages shoulel bo deeluctible for land-tax purposes, provieled the tax is based upon the full unimproved value of the land ; but I think that the deduction should have a limit. The mortgage shoulel be deductible up to a point. On a property valued at £21.000 the lanel-tax is £175, or 2d. in the pound. I think that up to that point the man should get full exemption, but I think that the: Commissioner could probably not afford to go beyond that. That would mean that up to £21,000 a man would get full exemption fer the tax up to the amount of his mortgage, but from that onward up to .£IOO,OOO he shoulel still only have; the 2d. It weiulel mean that everybody woulel get an allowance up to a certain amount, more er lews —each would get a, certain allowance on his mortgage, but the smaller farmer would gert the full allowance if he, hael unimproved value to the full extent eif £21,000. I elei not think it weiulel be a, hardship upon tho Commissioner to dei that. The land-tax collected is not very huge:, anel lam sure that most of the farmers weiulel feel that it was equitable, Mr. Weston.] With regard lo your suggestion as to exemption in the case: of mortgages, the laneleiwner would only be taxed upon his unimproved value ?- -On the full unimproved value. The mortgage is lent not only on the unimproved value but also on the improvements, anel it weiulel be scarcely fair to allow a deduction of the; wheile amount of the mortgage, as part of that mortgage: was advanced em improvements which are not taxed? —That might be. I was only thinking of the lane) mortgages.

13— B. 5.