TIIE NEW 'STAMP-LAWS.
TO THE EDITOR AP SHE SPECTATOR.
litanchester' 2d April 1850. Six—While congratulating the country on the prospect of greater facili- ties in the -transfer of hind, and the encouragement held out to the acquisi- tion of small properties, by the operation of the proposed scale of -Stamp- duties as given in your last number, allow me to draw attention to an existing burden of that nature, without the repeal of which 'the con- templated boon will be in a great measure valueless and illusory. I allude to the stamp on what is called in the profession the "lease for a year,"—a tax as absurd as it is oppressive. Formerly, the deed of conveyance (of freehold property) was obliged to be accompanied by such a lease as above mentioned, (dated the day before,) in or- der, by a fiction of law, to vest the actual possession in the pur- chaser. A few years ago, however, the necessity for this document was abolished by statute • but the stamp-duty in respect thereof was, and still is, continued, and has to be affixed to the conveyance in addition to the ad- valorem duty payable on the purchase-money. Now, under the proposal scale of a half per cent on purchase-monies -up to 5001., a purchaser to the amount of 350/. would have to pay just as much-stamp-duty for the lease for a year as on his conveyance' namely, 11. 158. or 3/. 108. in.the whole ; while on every purchase of a smaller amount, the leaso-stamp would be actually higher than the ad-valorean duty on -the conveyance. This stamp should therefore by all means be now abolished. Your correspondent appears to me to have fallen into an error in calcu- lating the proposed stamp-duty on certain amounts of purchase-money. For instance, on a consideration-money of 79,9501., he reckons the stamp -duty (being one per cent on sums above '1,0000 at 802!. lag. Intake it 8001.— :and on this manner : 79,9001. at one per mat would give 7991. ; :and as the duty .(on purchases above 1,0001.) is to attach on every fraction of 1001. the remaining 601. (or even a smaller sum) would require the same stamp es another 100/., namely 1/. ; which, added to 799!., makes 800!. He also calla -the present and proposed stamp-duty equal on a purchase-money of 1,1501.— " to wit, 91." This is perhaps a misprint, as, according to his own showing, the present duty is 121., and the proposedduty,as I reckon it, would be the same. The Daily Hews of the 21st having given quite an e.rroaeolas view of the Chancellor's scheme, your correctness at this time becomes the more necessary and valuable. C. S.
Previous page
