Copy.
Hon. Colonial Secretary,
1.
Machinery of Collection.
40
I am not sure what is the exact point of paragraph 1(1) of the Board of Inland Revenue memorandum. The writer does not seem to regard our compulsory system with favour, but his chief point seems to be that the criminal penalty is largely nullified by the limitation of section 42 that no offences can be prosecuted after two years. This limitation would of course in some cases prevent prosecution, and I do not see any reason for it, but with respect, I do not think that it justifies the remark in the memorandum, "It is difficult to see how these penalties could be successfully sued for". We have used with great effect in the past the criminal penalty under the old Ordinance for failure to stamp receipts. On the above sub-paragraph of the memorandum I would merely suggest the repeal of section 42(1) of the Ordinance, No.8 of 1921.
2. With respect, I do not agree with paragraph 1(2) of the memorandum. The idea is that every person who puts his name to the document is under an obligation to see that it is duly stamped. In the particular case mentioned in the
memorandum there is no reason why the vendor should not
arrange that the conveyance should be stamped by him and
that the purchaser should pay him the amount of the stamp.
However, I am prepared to go through all the cases in the schedule in which "all persons executing" are made liable for stamping, and to pick out in each case some party as the party to be made liable. In conveyances it would be the purchaser, and in the other cases also I would consult
the local practice on the point.
3. With regard to paragraph 1(3) of the memorandum, the
whole matter could be put through in half a hour in most cases, and in almost every case the hearing of the action
could
כם ח