9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Construction of lease and memoranda regarding tax liabilities. 2. Definition and scope of "land-tax" in New South Wales. 3. Applicability of the "Bridge-tax" under the lease and memoranda. Detailed Analysis: 1. Construction of Lease and Memoranda Regarding Tax Liabilities: The primary issue was the interpretation of a series of documents exchanged between lessors and lessees of business premises in George Street, Sydney, to determine their respective liabilities for taxes payable in respect of the premises. The lease dated 30th November 1909, demised the premises for 33 years from 1st August 1909, and included a covenant that the lessees would bear, pay, and discharge all rates, taxes, charges, and assessments, except the landlord's property-tax or land-tax. A memorandum signed by the lessors clarified that the lessors would pay the landlord's property-tax or land-tax or any Municipal-tax on the unimproved capital value of the land. A second memorandum signed on 31st March 1910, further stipulated that the lessors would pay any future land-tax or Municipal-tax on the unimproved capital value. 2. Definition and Scope of "Land-Tax" in New South Wales: The appellants contended that the "Bridge-tax" imposed by the Sydney Harbour Bridge Act, 1922, was neither a land-tax nor ejusdem generis with land-tax, arguing that the words "land-tax" had a settled meaning in New South Wales, referring specifically to a tax imposed by the State Land Acts. The judgment noted that the term "land-tax" could be defined by well-known facts in the law, including various statutes, and that the fiscal changes of 1908-10, which included the substitution of the general rate for the land-tax of 1895, were relevant to interpreting the parties' agreements in 1910. 3. Applicability of the "Bridge-tax" Under the Lease and Memoranda: The controversy arose when the appellants, as assignees of the reversion of the premises, called on the respondents to pay the "Bridge-tax," which the respondents denied liability for under the lease and memoranda. The judgment concluded that the second memorandum, which included the liability for "any future land-tax or Municipal-tax upon the unimproved capital value," indicated that the lessors' liabilities were not limited to the land-tax of 1895 and its substitutional general rate. The judgment affirmed that the "Bridge-tax," being a yearly impost laid upon real property by parliamentary enactment for public revenue, fell within the description of a land-tax. Conclusion: The judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had found in favor of the lessees, was affirmed. The appeal was dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellants. The judgment clarified that the "Bridge-tax" was within the ambit of the lessors' liability as defined by the lease and memoranda, and that the term "land-tax" included the "Bridge-tax" imposed by the Sydney Harbour Bridge Act, 1922.
|
