"forfeiture".
741
: +
Thus in strict law the position is that the land in question is forfeit to Government as no fee on transfer was paid: and both parties are liable to pecuniary fine and corporal punishment. Now the Land Court is obliged to decide strictly in accordance with the law. The first step should therefore, be to disallow any claim of either party.
Then the matter can be dealt with executively and in view of the Secretary of State's instructions and of the circumstances of the case, I recommend that the taxlord should be discarded entirely. The fraud has been discovered: there is therefore no point in vicarious payment by a taxlord of Crown Rent on behalf of the person to whom he has sold his land outright. The Government will in future get its Crown Rent directly from B: and, that being the case, there is no point in F's making further contribution to A.
This case is simple: and equity I think demands that the taxlord should be completely eliminated.
(2) The second case is slightly more complex, but the main difference is simple enough, viz.: that, whereas in the first case A sold outright to B, in this case B, not having sufficient money to purchase outright, obtains from A a perpetual lease. Thus A's interest in the land as such ceases absolutely: but he remains liable to the full amount of tax to the Chinese Government. Accordingly, he demands from B the amount of the tax plus a very low rental. So, in this case also, there is (1) vicarious payment of tax, and (2) the Government is defrauded of the 3% transfer fee. Besides this there is a further illegality, for the Chinese Government set itself resolutely against the intervention of any third party between itself and the occupier of the land. Lease is not recognised in any way by the Chinese Code and a fortiori perpetual lease is quite illegal. The only means of transfer recognized by law are outright sale and mortgage.
Moreover, under a byelaw of the 35th year of K'ien Lung it is provided that "a deed mortgage for a term exceeding 10 years must pay duty", i.e. the ordinary 3% transfer fee.
It is also provided that in the case of mortgage, if 30 years have elapsed without redemption...
"feiture".
741
:
+
Thus in strict law the position is that the land in question
is forfeit to Government as no fee on transfer was paid: and both
parties are liable to pecuniary fine and corooral ounishment. Now the
Land Court is obliged to decide strictly in accordance with the law.
The first steo should therefore, be to disallow any claim of either
party.
Then the matter can be dealt with executively and in view of
the Secretary of State's instructions and of the circumstances of the
case, I recommend that the texlord should be discarded entirely. The
fraud has been discovered: there is therefore no point in vicarious
payment by a taxlord of Crown Rent on behalf of the person to whom be
has sold his lend outright. The Government will in future get its
Crown Rent directly from B: and, that being the case, there is no
point in F's making further contribution to A.
This case is simple: and equity I think demands that the
taxlord should be comoletely eliminated.
(2) The second case is slightly more complex, but the main
difference is simple enough, vie: that, whereas in the first case A sold outright to B, in this case E, not having sufficient money to
Thus A's inter- purchase outright, obteins from A a perpetual lease.
est in the land as such ceases absolutely: but he remains liable to the full amount of tax to the Chinese Government. Accordingly, he
ja demands from B the amount of the tax olus a very low rental. So, this case also, there is (1) vicarious payment of tax, and (2) the Government is defrauded of the 3% transfer fee. Besides this there is a further illegality, for the Chinese Government set itself re- solutely against the intervention of any third party between itself and the occuoent of the land. Lease is not recognised in any way by the Chinese Code and fortiori perpetual lease is quite illegal. The only means of transfer recognized by law are outright sale and mort-
Moreover, under a byelaw of the 35th. year of K'in Long it is provided that "a deed mortgage for a term exceeding 10 veers must pay
It is also provided that duty", i.e. the ordinary 34 transfer fee.
gage.
in the case of mortage, if 30 years have elaosed without redemption
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.