FINANCE ACT, 1910.
[To THE EDPIO2 OP THE "SPECTATOL*]
Sta,'—Will you allow me to call attention through your paper to certain difficulties connected with the valuation returns under the above Act which a little care and thought in the preparation of the forms and instructions would have avoided, and which appear to be more serious (though not so universally troublesome) than the points mentioned in your article in the Spectator of August 20th P Without troubling you with a long statement of the provisions of the Act with regard to minerals which were not comprised in a mining lease or being worked on April 30th, 1909, I may say that under Section 23 (2) such minerals are to be treated as having no value, unless the owner, " in his return furnished to the Commissioners," specifies their nature and his estimate of their capital value.. On this I would observe :- (1) In cases where plots of land have been let on building leases, minerals being reserved, and the leases having more than fifty years to run, the lessee will be the " owner " of the surface, and probably the only person who will be called upon to make a return. It therefore does not appear clear that in such a case the actual owner of the minerals will be afforded any opportunity of returning their value.
(2) In cases where the owner of the surface is also the owner of the minerals the only opportunity given of returning the value of the minerals is by an invitation, at the end of Form IV., to state the value of the minerals under each separate parcel of land the surface of which is in separate occupation. This would mean, of course, that in cases where the surface has been let for building, and is in a hundred (or more) separate holdings of a few square yards each, the minerals under each would have to be separately valued. Every one at all acquainted with the subject will at once see the absurdity of this.
(3) The absurdity just referred to may be illustrated by referring to the provisions of the Act with regard to minerals which, on April 30th, 1909, were comprised in a lease. Under Section 22 (7), when these minerals cease to be comprised in a mining lease, their capital value is to be specially ascer- tained. This appears to be a comparatively reasonable pro- vision, for what has to be ascertained is apparently the value of the minerals which were comprised in the lease, without regard to the occupation of the surface.
(4) Considering that minerals are to be regarded as " a separate parcel of land," what possible justification is there for connecting them, for valuation purposes, with the surface and its occupation, as is done in Form IV. P—I am, Sir, &c., LEX.
Previous page
