CHAP, III] THE CONFERENCE OF 1911
13) y
1) Income Tax and Death Duties
On these heads no progress could be effected. The Imperial
Exchequer was not in a position to sacrifice the revenue
derived from double income-tax,! and Mr. Lloyd George
pointed out that there could be no real reciprocity, as Great
Britain lent money largely and the Dominions did not, so
that the Dominions alone would gain by the principle of
allowing the duty to be charged only in the Dominions.
Mr. Lloyd George, however, promised to see whether the
same rule as to death duties could be adopted and a deduction
made of the part charged in the Dominions, but this proved
impracticable. Nor on administrative grounds could he see
his way to alter the rule of the Finance Act, 1910, under
which residents in the Colonies could not obtain exception
on dividends from British securities.
As regards death duties it was not possible to find a
solution of the difficulty as to the locality of assets. The
Imperial Government could not accept the South African
view under which the assets are situated where the company
operates, and unless that view is abandoned, s. 20 of the
Finance Act, 1894. cannot be applied.?
(k) Coinage and Weights and Measures
Mr. Batchelor 3 moved on June 2, on behalf of the Common-
wealth Government, their resolution in favour of the reform
of the system of weights and measures and coins. He
explained that the Commonwealth were prepared to adopt
the metric system, but they could not usefully do so unless
Great Britain and New Zealand also adopted it, and if the
© Cd. 5745, pp. 358-64; 5746-1, pp. 266-70.
* General Botha (pp. 364 seq.) pressed that incorporation should b>
the test of locus of shares in any company, and he also intimated that, if
they so desired, the Union Parliament could prevent (no doubt by requiring
all transfers to be local) shares in companies registered in South Africa
being situate in law in the United Kingdom. Mr. Malan (p. 367) suggested
that in any case deduction of the Colonial duties be allowed. but Mr. George
was not favourable.
? Ibid., pp. 165, 166.
