G. W. LEADLEY.]

8.—5.

113

George William Lbadley, Farmer, Ashburton, and President of the Mid-Canterbury Section of the Farmers' Union, examined. The Chairman.] Have you put your views em the: subject of taxation into writing ?—No, sir. Owing to our infrequent mail-service I did not get notice until Friday. What do you wish to say ? I have no very serious personal grievance to ventilate. My difficulties are inconsiderable when compared with those of some of the men who have approached me, and I appear here to-day more as the representative of quite a number of farmers who have asked me to come here, These are men who have told me of their difficulties, men who are face to face with the difficulties of the situatiem that has arisen and are feeling very keenly on those matters. What I have to say does not altogether affect myself or apply to myself, but I wanted to deal with it in a general way —not tei theorize, but to give the, actual experiences erf men who are; face to face with the position as it exists tei-elay. 1 finel in conversation with those gentlemen that their objection is to the mortgage-tax. What do you mean by that that there is a limit to the exemption in respect eif taxation ? —No ; the tax on mortgages. There is nei tax on meirtgagcs now ?—ls there not ? How king ago did that take effect ? Mr. Clark: In 1916. 1 think that what Mr. Leaelley is referring to, Your Honour, is the disalhiwance of the deduction erf meirtgagcs in the lanel-tax assessment. Witness : That is what I mean. I did not mean a direct tax en mortgages. Mr. Clark : It is loosely referred to as a mortgage-tax. Witness: I mean that the farmer has to pay taxation on the whole of the capital value of his land irrespective eif his debts. The Chairman.] Only when it exceeds a certain sum ? -Yes. That is what 1 was trying to get at. lam seirry 1 did not make myself clear. The; objection which men make is that in cases where a man's equity in his land does not amount to more than 10 per cent, he has tei pay on the full value. Mr. Weston.] Is it nerf wrong that a man like that shoulel buy property to that extent ?— Possibly it is. Should he not be content with a smaller farm, or lease: erne ? —That is one eif the chief objections whie;h I find men have to-day. 1 have: hael hitters and personal instances given tei me, showing that men are finding great difficulty in meeting the land-tax, anel they consider they are, being unfairly dealt with in having to pay taxation on the full taxable value eif their land when their personal interest in the land is such a small one. Another matter which has been brought, be-fore; me is that; the' point at, which the graduated tax commences should be' raised. If, commences now at £5,000, and men are; asking that the point, when the graduated scale commences should be raised, leir this roasem : When the graduateel tax was first introduced it was introduced ostensibly for the purpose of bursting-up estates. It, was a finger of warning, we: were told by the gentlemen who were responsible lor it, held up to the large, landholder. That condition of affairs does not exist to-day as it; did at that time; anil owing to the increaseel ceist of land a man may be a very small holder in area anil yet come under the graduation. Farms have been sold in my district in the last few years farms without any buildings on them —at from £42 10s. to £74 per acre. Mr. Shirtcliffe.] Teio high. —Decidedly ; but I suppose- the- man who bought the; farm thought there was something in it. That is a fact. This year, since harvest, a farm in my neighbourhood has been sole! at the extravagant price of £42 10s. per acre:. It has not a stick on it, and a man buying land at those rates soon conies unele.r the graeluated tax. There is a strong complaint amongst the fanners against this. The smaller men are feeling the pinch eif the, graduated taxatiem, anel areasking that that be remedied. With regard tei the re-imposition of the income-tax, 1 note that some erf the evidence given before the Commission has been in the direction of asking for the, reiniposition of the; income-tax on farmers. Well, I am in a position to say that that is neit the desire of any considerable number of farmers. The;y are: opposed to income-tax on lanel together with the- lanel-tax. Their objection is that the conditions anil requirements of the' returns are so complicated. Here I. have a copy erf the, return furnished to each farmer, anel en the front page, there are twenty-one items as to what he must not do. He is told to reael through this list, and there are twenty-one things for wliie-,h he must not make any deduction. Then he- is referred to Part Dof the ferm. The Chairman.] It is hardly worth while going into those details? —But there; is one point 1 want to refer to in Part D which refers to the estimated value of the: products of the, farm used. I undertake, to say that very few of the farmers take; any notice of that. It means that if your wife gathers a basket erf eggs or of apples you must enter that in the form as having been used em the farm. Nobody does it. Mr. Clark: We estimate it. We have, the same trouble with hoteikei'pers anel restaurantkeepers. Witness: That is one of the objectionable features. Another objectionable feature is the somewhat inquisitorial manner in which the, assessments on these returns were made when the income-tax was in existence. My individual grievance, against the system is that when I have: sent in my returns they have not been recognized. On one, occasion 1 sent in a return. I did not receive any acknowledgment eif it, and. no intimation that the, return was in order or sufficient. About four or five months after the return was furnished a demand was made upon me for £1,000 tax. The Chairman.] Did you pay, it ?—I wrote to the Department and told them I had sent in the return and that I thought there was a grievous error in their' calculation. The reply was to the effect that, I shoulel refer my documents to a chartered accountant. I die! so, and after investigation and further communications with the Department the demand was reduced to below £20. That is not an isolated case. Others have been served in the same way, and I think that is rather a rough-and-ready way of doing things. Farmers generally are not good accountants and not good hands at keeping books, and I believe that many a farmer has had a I'cmand maele on him. which is in excess of the proper amount, but rather than make any noise abou', it he has paid up. I know cases where that has been done, and where it has been proved to be an excessive charge. Mr. Clark.] How long ago did that incident happen ? —lt was the last year of the collection of the tax from the farmers, about two or three years ago.

15— B. 5.