Secretarial practice

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1828236004

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-249926

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Secretarial practice

Edition:: fourth edition

Place of publication:: Cambridge

Publisher:: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd

Year of publication:: 1930

Scope:: viii, 987 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Chapter XXIX. Stamp duties

Collection:: Economics Books

STAMP DUTIES 373 £2 or upwards gives a receipt not amounting to £2 or separates or divides the amount paid with intent to evade the duty, he shall incur a fine of £10.’ It will be observed that no particular form of words is now necessary to render a writing given for or upon the payment of money chargeable as a receipt, and that it is not necessary that the writing should be signed. There are numerous decisions upon the definition of a receipt. The use of the word ‘settled’ or of any form of writing, even a mere signature in a book in columns by which payment is acknowledged, is sufficient, and in the case of The Attorney-General v. The Carlton Bank, Limited (1899), 2 Q.B. 158, it was held that the initials by the secretary or cashier of a bank written in a book containing entries of sums collected or recovered by the salaried solicitor of the bank as an acknowledgment that moneys amounting to a total sum of £2 or upwards had been paid over by him to the bank rendered the duty payable. It has also been held in two other cases [General Council of the Bar v. Inland Revenue (1907), 1 K.B. 462], that the placing of his initials by a King’s Council or of his signature by a barrister against the fees marked on his brief as an acknowledgement of the payment of fees, amounting to £2 or upwards, is a receipt within the definition. The charge extends to every document signed as a receipt, and it is not material that the sum for which the receipt is given was included with other sums for which another receipt was given. Thus, in the case of The Attorney-General v. Ross (1909), 2 Ir. R. 246, it was held by the Court of Appeal in Ireland that a receipt given for rent amounting to £2 was chargeable with the duty, although the payment was included in a composite account for rent and goods for which another receipt, duly stamped, had been given, and the separate receipt for rent was stated to have been given for book-keeping purposes only. A receipt for a donation or subscription to a charity (payment of which could not generally be enforced at law) is in practice allowed exemption from duty. A receipt for a payment by cheque is a receipt for a bill of exchange within the definition, and when a payment amounting to £2 or upwards is made, it is not material whether it is a payment in full or on account. In the case of contra accounts, where a settlement 1s effected between the parties by payment of a balance and -e sum paid is less than £2, a receipt stamp is not neces- but it must be clear that the receipt was not in the form receint for the debt itself—it must show precisely what

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Secretarial practice

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation