[To THE EDITOR Or THE "SPECTITOR."]
SIR,,—I venture to suggest that the article in your issue of the 15th inst. requires an immediate correction on your part in a most vital and important particular. In the third para- graph of it you elaborate, I think on a false premise, an argument which tends to justify the land taxes of the present Administration. You write of a shop-keeper, " in honesty," bringing into his accounts any appreciation of his premises for taxation as being a part of his income. I contend that no business man who understands Income Tax practice in the least would be so misguided as to include in his " Return of Income " any such increment, as it is not taxable within the meaning of the Income Tax Acts, solely by reason of its being an appreciation of capital. I (an individual in no way interested in land) draw your attention to what. I submit, is
an error on your part, so that you may not unwittingly afford the Henry and Lloyd Georgites the smallest justification or plea beyond what they think they now have for their land- taxing principles, which you have so ably demonstrated to me to have no foundation upon justice or equity.—I am, Sir, &o.,
[The suggestion that a shop-keeper brings into his return for Income Tax any appreciation in the capital value of his freehold premises was an error, and we are obliged to our correspondent for pointing it out to us. The shop-keeper would, of course, pay on the annual value of the said premises under Schedule A.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
