SITE VALUE.
[To THE EDITOR Or THE "CrEcTAToe,") SIE,—I am probably quite as willing as " H. B. B.," in a recent issue, to criticize the present Government. But criticism should at least be intelligent and well founded. " H. B. B.'s " is of the exasperating kind which injures a good case and
almost justifies a Government in turning a deaf ear to criticism. His facts are that a cottage on which three years ago he spent £72 has been valued at £52 and its site at £8, and be states that if he sells at £175 (which he would want) he would have to pay " Increment Tax on £123 and site value on £8." Surely he knows that the valuation relates back to 1909, and that in arriving at the assessable site value on the occasion of a sale he will be entitled to have taken into account the expenditure of £72 incurred iu 1911. If he sells for £175, this is what (in effect, though not by quite so simple a process) will happen :-
Sale price ... ... .•• 4175 0 0 Cottage valued at ...
Site valued at ...
8
Expenditure since 1909 ... 72-132 0 0
5)43 0 0 Increment Tax ...
0 0 The £3 does not count, and for that reason, the original site value being small, the deduction of ten per cent. in respect of it is omitted. This calculation is on the basis most favourable to the Government, as it attributes the whole of the increase to the site. If " H. B. B." is correct in stating that the cottage is now worth £173 (he says the site is only worth £2), the value as in 1909 was £101, not £52, and he should lodge an objection to the provisional valuation.—I am, Sir, &c., 8 East Park Road, Blackburn. HENRY SCHOFIELD.
Previous page
