**
11
魔器
August 19, 1899.7
LIFTS AND RATES.
CHINA OVERLAND TRADE REPORT.
to this cost
the gross rent, the remainder being taken as the annual value of the premises for the purposes of the Ordinance. The principle of taking monopalistic profits as the amount to be deducted leads to a reductio ad absurdum, for if a building were erected without a staircase the upper floors would be inaccessible, and therefore unlet table, without lifts, and so would escape taxation altogether.
figures $20,000 for the two, and upon this | the sum allowed by Mr. Justice Wish would (Daily Press, 14th August.) When the Rating Bill of 1888 was in excess of what should reasonably be allowed give a return of 35 per cent., which is far in troduced in the Legislative Council it for interest and depreciation. The cost of contained a provision that the annual value the electricity used would also have to be of a-tenement should be the rent at which
taken into account, which would reduce the such tenement might reasonably be expected above stated return, but the point now un- to let and that "such annual value shall der consideration is not the particular sum "include the value of any fixtures or fixed that might be arrived at, but the principle
machinery which may be regarded as
to be adopted in finding the amount to be "the proper fittings of the tenement and deducted from a valuation on account of essentially necessary to its occupation by machinery. The correct principle, we sub- 64 the tenant." When the Bill was in commit, would be to ascertain the capital value mittee the Hon. C. P. CHATER moved of the machinery, allow a fair percentage that these words should be struck out and thereon for profit and depreciation, add the following words from the old Ordinance be substituted therefor :--" In estimating
of working, and deduct amount 80 arrived at from the "the value of a tenement the value of any wachinery contained therein shall not be "included." The arguments "he advanced in support of his amendement were the injury that would be done to the then exist ing manu actures if the Bill as it stood was adopted and the desirability of encourag ing new manufactures. On the other hand it was pointed out that Hong kong was the only place in the world where machinery was exempt from rates and it was urged that it was unfair to other ratepayers that the owners of machinery should escape. On a division Mr. CHATER's amendment was lost, the official majority, reinforced by the Hon. WONG SHING, voting against it, while the unofficial menibers, with the exception noted, voted for it. At a subsequent weet- ing, however, while the Bill was still in committee, the Governor announced that he had been converted by representations } made to him privately by Mr. CHATER, and the proposal to rate machinery was conse- quently struck out and the provision ex- pressly exempting machinery was introduced and passed. Although it is evident from the debates that the Legislature had princi- palty in mind industrial machinery, it was nevert less remarked that all houses had machinery of some kind, gas lamps, cooking pots, and son, and had the question of lifts been introduced there can be little doubt
which
The principle on should be assessed was referred to when machinery
the Bill was before the Council. The
question was asked on what basis ma- chinery was to be rated, whether on the cost of it or otherwise.
EL
"
แ
14
ES
#f
"That
again," replied the Colonial Treasurer (the late Hon. A. LISTER) is a most difficult question. You must first decide what machinery is to be rated, discriminating "between fixtures and workmen's tools, "which are never rated, and then ask what a tenant would give for the whole going concern, supposing he finds "the movable tools, but was provided with "the fixed machinery, boilers, etc.
The capital value of the machinery has. of course, something to do with it, but it does not necessarily always decide it. That "is the only practicable test; you must somehow arrive at the sum which a tenant would find himself justified in 'giving for the concern.
the gross earnings, making a deduction You may take
" for the tenant's profits, wear and 'tear, insurance, and other considerations "and this would have the net rateable "value." That does not seem very definite, view, but it is useful as an indication, by nor is it authoritative from a legal point of
who was supposed to have given Having decided that lifts were exempt, usual in such cases.
special study to the subject, of what is however, Mr. Justice Wise had further to think, would
Now no tenant, we decide what deducti u from the gross rental machinery amounting to 35 per cent. upon consent to pay rent for should be made on that account, and here its value, unless in cases of monopoly, and we think the learned Judge adopted a the latter is not an element that can pro- wrong principle. He said in his judgment:perly be taken into consideration in ques "I therefore hold that lifts of this descriptions of rating. If $7,000 a year be taken as “tion are not rateable, and that being so I, “in accordance with my decision in the Gas Company's case in 1890, hold that profits also are not rateable. By profits I mean the enhanced rental that would accrue "from the existance of such lifts. The
that apparatus of that description would have fbeen accepted as falling within the meaning of the word “machinery." At all events the word was left without quali- fication, and in the case which has just been decided in the Summary Court on an appeal from an assessment the Judge could pot have arrived at any other conclusion than that lifts were exempt.
45
25
KE
correct way of assessing this property is to "take the probable annual rental supposing that the lifts did not exist." He accord ingly, reduce:l the amount upon whick rates were leviable from $18,300 a year to $11,160,-(there was a further reduction on account of non-occupation, which does not affect the present argument)—thus giving a sum of over $7,000 a year is the profits of the lifts. In the premises in question there are two lifts. What they may have cost we are not in a position to say, but suppose each lift be taken as worth £1,000, that would give in round
one
from rates.
the value of lifts in houses, what would be a proper sum it which to place the value of the windows, supposing windows were exempte:l A tenement would have its value reduced more by an absence of win dows than by an absence of lifts. It would not be contended that the proper basis on which to arrive at the value of the windows would be to take the difference in the amount of rent that would be paid for a house without windows and the same house with windows: But that is the principle Mr. Justice WISE has applied in the case of lifts.
villages of Samyuenli and Tonghai, outside the A clan fight has broken out between the
North Gate of Canton. A great number of killed and wounded has been reported on both sides General Lui Yung-fu has been sent to stop the fight.
SUPREME - COURT.
August 12th.
IN SUMMARY JURISDICTION,
143
THE EATING' APPEAL-JUDGMENT FOR
APPELLANTS.
of the Hongkong Land Investment and Agency His Lordship delivered judgment in the appeal
Co., Limited, against the interim assessment, dated 30th June, 1899, of the offices and dwelling". on Marine Lot No. 278, in Connaught Road. and Mr. F. B. L. Bowley (Acting Crown Soli- Mr. J. Hastings appeared for the appellanta, citor) for the assessor. Mr. A. Chapman.
His Lordship delivered judgment as fol- lows:-
This is an appeal under the Rating Ordinanes (15 of 1888) by the Hongkong Land Investment Co., Limited, against the assessment of the pre mises situate on Marine Lot No. 278. The grounds of the appeal are as follows :-
1. That the said tenement is valued beyond its rateable value, the value of certain machinery cluded in the said rateable value, contrary to the upon or in the said tenement having been in provisions of the above-mentioned Ordinance. rateable value on the date on which such valua. 2. That the said tenement is valued beyond its
tion was made (June 30, 1899), because on the unfinished and incapable of beneficial occupation. said date certain portions of the said building were
The Assessor duly appointed under the said Ordinance after making enquiries assessed the rateable value (that is the annual rent) of the whole building at $17,830. He apparently arrived at that sum in the following manner. From inquiries he found that the various floors were let at certain monthly rentals, viz:-FirstTM floor and part of basement, $465; second floor and part of basement, $440; half the third floor, $150; half the third floor, $150; fourth floor, $320, making $1,525 per mensem or $18,300 pur annum. He also found the fourth floor and hall the third floor unoccupied on June 30, 1899 (the date of the assessment) and having reason believe that that portion of the building would be occupied in about a month, he made a deduo tion of $470 (being $320 +$150) from the sum of $18,300 bring it down to $17,830. Now in dealing with the grounds of the appeal already! set out, I think it will be convenient to consider the second one first. This ground deals with the question as to whether the assessor made sufficient deductions for the unoccupied portion. The s the last part of sub-section 5, section 1 of the sessor in arriving at the sum of $470 acted under
ordinance. That reads as follows:—“In the case of buildings let to more than one occupier there may be deducted from the total annual rent of the whole tenement estimated as aforesaid, a sum
may reasonably be expected to be unlet from time not exceeding 20 per cent. of the whole, as an allowance for snch portions of such buildings.as to time during the ensuing year, and the remain- der shall be the ratsable value." The Assessor having, as I have said, reason to believe that the nnoccupied portions would be occupied in the course of a month, deducted one month's rent from the annual rental as a reasonable allowance. Now in this I think he was wrong?"
It appears to me quite clear that the last part of the sub-section above quoted does not refer to the case of a new building in which portion has never been occupied, but refers to the case of buildings already completed, like Chinese teuements, in which, from the nature of their lettings, it may reasonably be expected that some of the rooms or floors will be un- occupied for some part or parts of the year and in those cases he may make such dednotions condition that such deductions shall not exceed as he may make think fit, subject only to the 20 per cent. of the whole annual rent. In my opinion the assessor ought to have acted under the first part of the sub-section, which reads follows:-" Rateable value means the rent at which any tenement may reasonably be ex- pected to let at the time of the valuation, if etc." Now at the time of the valuation' this floor and a half was unoccupied, and never had been occupied, and therefore not rateable. So it seems to me that instead of deducting oul one month's rental, he ought to have deducted twelve months'. I am strengthened in this opinion by the fact that by Section 23 of the