THE WAR OFFICE,
LONDON, S.W.1.
6
24 April, 1931.
114
Dear Calder,
May I bother you about another point in connection with the examination we are making of Hong Kong's claims for the exemption of certain item of revenue from 1. assessment (C.0. letter No.82756/31 of 27th February 1931).
When the C.O. wrote to us on 19th February 1930, No.62832/29, on this question a despatch No.400 of September 1929 from Hong Kong was included, relating to the question of assessment for contribution of profits on exchange, and
9on 62854/29 con 62916/29
12 on 62832/2441 corresponding semi-officially with Clauson later (May 19th
(2)
71315/30 Faul
4
W
1930) regarding the C.0. letter of 19th February I said "Your official letter does not express any views on the despatch from the Governor of Hong Kong No.400 of 10th September 1929 .. and we will reserve any comment upon this particular claim for exemption until it is presented with the other claims".
The claim is not included in the claims forwarded with C.0. letter of 27th February 1931, but we assume it still stands. We are not clear as to the manner in which the item claimed for exemption, gets into the gross revenue as shown in the annual return we get from the Colony, and how it is calculated. Neither are we clear how the claim and the figures etc., in it may have been affected by the amended Colonial Regulations relating to the method of shewing investments in the annual Colonial accounts (see Lyon's correspondence with Vernon ending with his letter No.16/ Abroad/333 F.1. of 22nd April, 1930). Are you sufficiently familiar with the intricacies of the Hong Kong accounts to discuss the point in detail if I came over I thought it might save a lengthy correspondence? Perhaps if necessary you could arrange for someone from the Colonial Audit to be present at the same time.
J.A. Calder, Esq.,
The Colonial'office,
S.W.1.
-m
/Would
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.