14404.
LAW
No. 214.
(SOUTH AFRICA.) OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE,
PRINTED FOR HER
LONDON
1
MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 21 DARLING & SON, LTD. 1-3, GREAT ST THOMal Apostur, LC.
1800
*
SIR,
Royal Courts of Justice, June 6, 1899.
you
WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. F. Graham's letter of the 24th ultimo, stating that he was directed by you to request us to favour a further
report on some of the questions raised in the letter from the Colonial Office of with 24th March last respecting the War Tax in the South African Republic.
That as regarded the relation of the War Tax to Article XIV of the London Convention you had, in pursuance of our opinion, addressed a telegram to the High Commissioner for South Africa.
That as regarded a claim for most-favoured-nation treatment, under the Draft Treaty of 1895, you desired Mr. Graham to point out that the War Tax Law did not apply to individual owners of property who were resident in the South African Republic"; and that he was to state that you did not clearly apprehend how a claim for exemption could be put forward on behalf of resident British subjects as shareholders in a Company on the corporate property of which the tax was levied.
That Mr. Grahamn was to inquire whether, in our opinion, in order to claim exemption, under the Commandeering Treaty of 1895, from the Tax imposed on the property of a Company or Syndicate, it was necessary that all the shareholders should be British subjects resident in the South African Republic, or, if some only of the share- holders were in that category, whether an exemption from a part of the tax-proportionate to their shares in the capital of the Company-"should be claimed,
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
THA in our opinion the rights conferred on British subjects resident in the South African Republic by the Treaty of 1895 (assuming it to be in force) enure in their favour as well when they are shareholders in companies as when they are not. which we intended to express in the second paragraph of our Report of the 6th April, It was this view 1899,*
If, therefore, an extraordinary military requisition or demand (such as the War Tax) is imposed on a Company which would escape the tax but for the existence among its shareholders of British subjects resident in the Transvaal, we think there would be a violation of the Treaty of 1895.
If the shareholders consist entirely of British residents, the tax should be remittel altogether, as a tax on the Company is really a tax on the shareholders in it.
The case is more difficult 'if such British residents are a part only of the share- holders. But in this case we think that the return to such British resident shareholders of a portion of the tax proportionate to their interest in the Company may fairly be demanded. The Tax is imposed on the Company solely because they are shareholders in it, and they are entitled to relief in respect of their share,
We should add that we do not think that any return of any portion of the tax could be claimed in a case where-besides British residents--there are other share- holders in the Company (eg, British subjects non-resident, or burghers not liable to military service) whose presence as shareholders would deprive the Company of its exemption from the War Tax. We do not think that in such a case the Treaty of 1895 could fairly be said to be infringed. The British residents, no doubt, bear their share of the Tax, but it is not imposed merely in respect of the fact that they are shareholders.
We have, &c.,
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P,
&c.,
&e..
&c.
• Xo. 209.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
3016-25-6 99 Wt 439 D&N
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.8
Reference :-
885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO |