RECEIPT STAMPS
SIR,—The letters which have appeared in The Spectator under this heading show such a strange difference of opinion that it might not be inappropriate to quote the relevant sections of the Stamp Act, 1891, which arc so clearly worded that any- one can understand them.
SEC. I0I. For the purposes of this Act the expression " receipt " includes any note, memorandum or writing whereby any money amounting to £2 or upwards . . . is acknowledged or expressed to have been received or paid.
SEC. 103. If any person— (I) Gives a receipt liable to duty and not duly stamped ; or
(2) In any case where a receipt would be liable to duty refuses to give a receipt duly stamped ; or
(3) Upon payment to the amount of £2 or upwards gives a receipt for a sum not amounting to £2, or separates or divides the amount paid with intent to evade the duty; he shall incur a fine of Lao.
Your correspondent Mr. F. R. Southwell states that strictly speaking, a receipt cannot lawfully be demanded. It would be interesting to learn his authority for this statement. It would indeed be strange if failure to comply with a request which could not lawfully be enforced were punishable by the infliction of a Lao fine!
As regards the letter from " Barrister-at-law " in your issue of July 28th, may I point out that it has been decided that the initialling by counsel of the fee on his brief is liable to duty under Sec. lot of the Stamp Act (General Council of
the Bar v. Inland Revenue (1907) 462).—Yours, &c.,
Previous page
