Mant v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Land Tax (Qld) [1915] HCA 46

564 HIGH COURT (1915.

H.C. or A. T think she must fail for the reasons expressed in the judgment: 1915. of the Chief Justice and adopted by the other members of the

=

sire Supreme Court. ee a T agree that the appeal should be dismissed. 'TrusTers Lr.

Appeal dismissed. By consent, no costs against the appellant. T'rustees to have costs out of the estate.

Solicitors, for the appellant, Thynne & Macartney. Solicitors, for the respondents, Aithow & McGregor; Walter

R. Scott. RG.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.) MANT AND OTHERS . : 3 " . APPELLANTS;

AND

THE DEPUTY FEDERAL COMMISSIONER

OF LAND TAX FOR unimansaan Rese

H.C. or A, Land Tax—Assessment——Statutory deductions—Joint owners—Legal and equitable interests—Partnership—Business of graziers—Lands owned by individual

1916. ae, partners—Mutual rights for partnership purposes—Land Tax Assessment Act

eee, 1910-1914 (No. 22 of 1910—No. 29-of 1914), secs. 2, 11, 27, 28, 35, 38, 42.

July 30; ae : i yikes For the purpose of assessment of land tax, the personal right created by a contract of partnership in a grazing business allowing the stock of the firm to Isaacs, isted " 7 t

earetteH, ang be agisted on lands owned severally by members of the partnership does not Powers JJ. constitute the partners "joint owners" of such lands within the meaning of

the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1914.

Consequently, the partners in such business are not liable to be assessed as joint owners of the whole of such lands under the provisions of the Land Tax

20 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

to be separately assessed and allowed a deduction of £5,000 from the unim- proved value in respect of the land owned by him.

Case STATED. On the hearing of an appeal by Charles Outram Mant and George Smyth Mant (the trustees of the will of George Mant, deceased), Charles Outram Mant, George Smyth Mant, Constance Mabel Kessels (formerly Mant), Mary Gertrude Mant, Ethel Maud Lewis (formerly Mant) and Edith Ellen Mant, against an assess- ment of them for land tax, Jsaaes J. stated a case under sec. 46 of the Land Tax Assessment Act 1910-1914, which was, sub- a stantially, as follows :— 1. Prior to and in the year 1900 George Mant (now deceased) was the owner of Gigoomgan Station, near Maryborough, in the State of Queensland, comprising 31,149 acres of freehold land under the provisions of the Real Property Acts of Queensland. 2. On 30th June 1900 the deed of partnership hereinafter referred to was duly executed by the respective parties thereto. 3. The said freehold lands continued to stand in the name of the said George Mant until the year 1907. 4, In the year 1907 the partners in the firm mentioned in the said deed agreed to distribute the said lands amongst the members of the said partnership, and in pursuance of the said agreement the said George Mant retained in his own name a piece of land. of the area of 5,366 acres, being part of the area in par. 1 hereof mentioned, and transferred by instruments duly registered in the Real Property Office to the following persons lands of the areas set out next to their respective names :— C. O. Mant, 5,120 acres; Geo. Smyth Mant, 4,624 acres; Mrs. C. __M. Kessels (formerly Constance Mabel Mant), 4,870 acres; Miss Mabel Gertrude Mant, 2,721 acres; Mrs. E. M. Lewis (formerly Ethel Maud Mant), 4,193 acres; and Miss Edith Ellen Mant, 4,255 acres. The consideration mentioned in each of the said transfers was natural love and affection. 5. The said lands referred to in the last preceding paragraph comprise the whole of the lands referred to in par. 1 hereof, and are the subject matter of this appeal.