DEPUTATION TO THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND. 67 



Mr Milne Home. —"And if I might venture to anticipate, 

 I would like to deal with it under three points ; I put 

 them forward as being suggestions that occur to me, and I 

 would not like to make the Council necessarily responsible 

 for them. 



*' I. With regard to local rates, the provisions of the Agricul- 

 tural Rates Act should undoubtedly be extended to 

 woodlands, so that the occupiers' rates would only be 

 charged on three-eighths of the valuation. It is difficult 

 to see any grounds upon which the distinction at present 

 made can in fairness be justified or continued. 



" It may perhaps be argued that the whole basis of valuation 

 is different between agricultural land and woodland, and that 

 consequently the latter has no right to claim the benefits of the 

 Agricultural Rates Act. To this argument I would reply, that 

 if an owner has a sheep farm in hand he gets the benefit of the 

 Act, but if he plants that same land he loses the benefit of the 

 Act, without any reduction or alteration in the valuation. This, 

 I think, conclusively proves the injustice, and must act as a 

 deterrent to planting. 



" 2. With regard to Income Tax, the double assessment under 

 Schedules A and B should be abolished and assessment 

 made under a single schedule only. It is true that 

 assessment is now optional under Schedule U instead 

 of Schedule B, but the period on which the profits are 

 to be calculated — three years — is much too short, and 

 would in many instances result in even greater injustice 

 than the present system. 



" It is especially difficult for any one at the present time to 

 take the option of Schedule D, because in response to the urgent 

 national demand nearly every owner of mature timber has been 

 making heavy fellings, and consequently would be called upon 

 to pay Income Tax on the value of that timber— an exceedingly 

 onerous burden. It may be perhaps asked why, if the owner is 

 receiving this money, he should not be asked to pay Income 

 Tax upon it. My reply is that the sum so received is capital 

 and not income at all, and that the owner and his predecessors 

 have paid annual Income Tax in respect of the profits from the 

 woodland where the timber was grown for a period of perhaps 

 seventy years, over which period there have been few, if any, 



