416
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
111
C.O.882/11
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC. | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
3283
92
(b) In support of their claim for total exemption of rents of government buildings let for profit or of any amended claim for assessment on net receipts (which is the present practice of the Straits).
The answer to this would be that not even the Colonial Office support this practice and it might be necessary to consider its abandonment by the Straits. In this connexion it might be observed that in July, 1921, Hong Kong drew attention to the example of the Straits Settlements as regards the inclusion of the proceeds, from Government buildings let for profit, in the assessable revenue on the basis of net receipts and asked that they might be treated in the same way; the War Office agreed that the Straits Settlements were doing this, but stated that they did not approve and had consistently challenged the Straits' right to do so. Hong Kong's proposal was therefore rejected and the Colonial Office informed them accordingly. (c) In support of a modified claim for the exemption of hospital and education
revenues as such.
It may not now be possible to insist on restoring the assessment of these revenues at the Straits, and Hong Kong might demand a similar concession. It would not necessarily follow, however, that because the Haliburton principles have been departed from in the Straits Settlements as regards these items, under protest from the War Office and the Treasury, the same concession is to be deliberately allowed to Hong Kong. The loss in military contribution would be between £4,000 and £5,000 a year.
Financial Comparison.
25. The War Office are not prepared to regard Hong Kong's reserved claims as an inducement to accept the Colony's main proposal for a revision of the method of assessment. On the information before them, the War Office have good grounds for ejecting all the more substantial of these reserved claims, so that the real question lies therefore in the issue between :-
(a) the present (Haliburton) assessment, viz.,
the cost of the garrison,
or
20 per cent of revenue, whichever is the less,
and
(b) the new proposal, viz.,
the cost of the garrison,
or
12 per cent of rateable value, whichever is less.
The comparison of yield of the two systems over a period of years, shown in the Appendix, has already been referred to in paragraphs 8 and 9. Up to 1913 there is not much in the differences one way or the other, but that from 1914 onwards Army Estimates would have lost heavily. The losses for the last few years in particular would have been (in sterling):—
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
£
173,500
192,000
164,400
8,250
34,550
93
26. The figures in column 2 of the Appendix include the elements of revenue which the Colony are now disputing in their reserved claim (paragraph 10). The effect on the contribution if the claims in paragraph 11 (iii) were allowed,() on the Colony's figures converted at an average rate of exchange for each year is as follows:-
Year.
1.
1926 1927
Actual Contribution
due.
2.
12 per cent Contribution if
of
reserved claim Valuation. had been allowed.
3.
4.
£
£
£
388,600 388,050
380,350
353,500
319,050 267,250
It is noteworthy that the Colony presses for a revision of methods which would maintain the contribution much about its present level; while alternative claims, which are held in reserve lest the Treasury and War Office should reject the new proposal, would, if conceded, reduce the contribution by a third. In pressing for the new proposal by which the contribution would be assessed at 12 per cent of the rateable value, the Colony expressly state that they have no desire to reduce the present contribution; the proposal might have the effect of preventing a rise in the contribution which would A rise in the revenue need not necessarily automatically follow a rise in the revenue. be reflected in a rise in the rateable value.
Appendix.
Comparison between Hong Kong's Military Contribution at 20 per cent of assessable revenue and 12 per cent of rateable value.
yield
on
Valuation
Difference
between
Valuation
12) per cent
Calendar Year
Military Contribution
at 1st July
of previous
year
Column 2 and Column 4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
$
$
$
$
1901
801,000
5,856,000
732,000
69,000
1902
914,000
6,890,000
861,000
53,000
1903
961,000
8,167,000
1,021,000
+
60,000
1904
1,271,000
8,788,000
1,099,000
172,000
1905
1,363,000
9,929,000
1,241,000
122,000
1906
1,305,000
10,511,000
1,314,000
+ 9,000
1907
1,214,000
10,969,000
1,371,000
+ 157,000
1908
1,250,000
10,716,000
1,340,000
+ 90,000
1909
1,226,000
10,817,000
1,352,000
+
1910
1,372,000
10,751,000
1,344,000
126,000 28,000
1911
1,343,000
11,092,000
1,387,000
+ 44,000
1912
1,387,000
1913
1,557,000
!1,161,000 12,312,000
1,395,000
8,000
1,539,000-
18,000
1914
1,819,000
12,436,000
1,555,000
264,000
1915
2,101,000
14,410,000
1,801,000
300,000
1916
2,117,000
14,287,000
1,786,000
331,000
1917
2,742,000
14,282,000
1,785,000
1918
2,704,000
14,410,000
1,801,000
903,000
1919
3,553,000
15,639,000
1,955,000
- 1,598,000
1920
2,761,000
16,305,000
2,038,000
1921
2,287,000
17,409,000
2,176,000
723,000 111,000
1922
3,195,000
18,697,000
2,337,000
1923
4,004,000
19,806,000
2,476,000
858,000
1,528,000
1924
4,250,000
21,060,000
2,633,000
1,617,000
1925
4,178,000
22,148,000
2,769,000
- 1,409,000
1926
3,485,000
27,288,000
3,411,000
1927
1928
3,842,000 (m)3,663,000
27,998,000
3,500,000
29,016,000
3,627,000
74,000 342,000 36,000
+1
1
957,000
F
It is true that these figures were adversely affected by the restriction of rents operating from 1923 to 1928; on the other hand any question of restricting rents in the future would be difficult to handle if the Home Government were the main party concerned.
(1) The Colony has not stated the financial effect of (i) and (ii) of paragraph 11, nor whether it intends to pursue them. The effect is not likely to be large. See paragraphs 12-14.
(m) Estimated. (To the nearest $1,000.) The figures in columns 2 and 3 are those supplied by Hong Kong.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.