103
remarks about cerrect accounting, it should be observed that changes in the total of revenue due to "improvements in bookkeeping" have never been taken as necessarily carrying cxemption of the effect of the changes from assessment to contribution.
The claim should presumably be for total exemption rather than for assesment on the basis of net receipts as the calculation of the net receipts would be difficult, the service account being a 'running' one. But it should be remarked that in the Memorandum from the Colony a reference is made to a profit next year, and it is not at all clear how any profit should arise on these transactions. The Colony might be asked to explain this.
16. F. Overpayments.
The Colony claim exemption for overpayments in previous years. What is meant by this is not at all clear, but it appears to be in cases where the Colony has paid sums out of Revenue in one year and in the next, or later, years, found it has paid too much and has accordingly recovered some amount. Apparently it has been the custom in the past not to credit such sums to revenue, but for accounting reasons it has now been decided to do so, and therefore it is desired to secure that military contribution is not charged. No estimate of the amount of money involved is given, but presumably it cannot be large, and as the revenue repaid has already been subject to contribution there would appear to be a case for consideration of exemption. It would be well perhaps to ascertain exactly what the Colony is referring to before any final decision is given.
17. G. Water Works,
It is stated that $12,000,000 has been expended by the Colony out of revenue over a period of 20 or 30 years up to 1923, on waterworks, and no deduction in respect of interest and sinking fund has been made. The waterworks are now financed from loan, but small items of a capital nature are still being financed fra revenue.
The Colony claim that by law a 42 deduction fram the waterworks receipts in respect of the capital expenditure financed fram revenue should have been made in the past undor the general ordinance admitting such a deduction in the case of productive undertakings, and should be allowed in the future, but they do not propose to claim arrears if the other claims referred to above are admitted, Presumably, however, they would expect the deduction to run for 50 years from the date of the various expenditures and to be applied in future to the whole body of prior expenditure. The amount involved is £4,800 in 1930 (which would be increased to £7,200 if the claim at A(3) is admitted), and a similar reduction in the contribution in subsequent years.
A rebate in respect of capital expenditure from revenue has in the past only been allowed in respect of productive undertakings assessable on net receipts (see para. 5 above), but the Colony apparently make no claim for the waterworks to be so assessed. The case for the deductions claimed obviously hinges on a case for treatment on net receipts and it is necessary therefore to examine the latter case first. In paragraph 17 the case for the deductions is examined on general principles and in paragraph 18 the Colonial statement that the deductions should have been made by law is criticized.
The/