PAY THE LOWEST TAX.
Page 11
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Contention that Advantage can, in many cases, be taken of the Act to secure Lower Taxation and Greater Freedom of Use.
By Lt.-Col. Alfred Hacking, D.S.O., M.C., General Secretary, Motor Legislation Committee.
THE contribution entitled " Taanspoet Tips, for . Tradesmen" in your issue. of January 11th his, by the volume andvaeiety of my coree spondenee, demonstrated how wide is the range of your readers. It is so difficult to reply to all inquiries that those who have written to me, and others, may find it useful to have my views on some matters of legal doubt which must affect thousands of
(terriers of the various classes of vehicles. I olefin no authority for accuracy in my inteepretatione of points upon • which lawyers necessarily differ, and which I fear must, before they are settled, be decided by the courts. Neither do I claim that those interpretations represent the intentions of the framers of the Acts, but I do say that, in my view as a lewyee, theY. are • legal interpretations of the statutes as they exist to-day:
I. agree with the author of "Transport 'Tips" that the owner of a chassis provided with a goada-earrying body may, if he pleaeee, and it he is willing or ansuous to use such a lorry. lox *vettepurposes and
, . , not " solely " for the convey-awe. ef goods in the course of trade, ask the registration authory to
licence and register such vehicle on the horse-power basis. If he is successful, he may claim the rele+te in respect of a pre-1913 engine. I do not agree with the author of the booklet published by the Commercial Motor Irsere Association that dirty in such cases is either on the horse-power or the; unladen weight basis, whichever is higher. There is nothing in the Finance Act or the Roads Aet, so far as I can see, to, warrant such an interpretation.
For this reason, I would advisee those who have not • as yet had their vehicles registered and licensed to consider which basis of taxation suite them beet and apply for a licence, on the appropriate. form.
In this connection I am. sorry to disagree, with
another statement. in -the. Commercial Motor Users Association's, booklet, that, in the case of a. vehicle used both for carriage of goods and passerigees, duty is payable either on 'unladen w.eight. oT on seating capacity, whichever is the higher. The Act -does not say this, whatever it may mean. My interpretation • of the law is that, if .a licence has been taken out
on the unladen weight basis, duty is payable at the higher rate if the vehicle is used for the carriage of passengers (making such vehicle a hackney carriage.); where the number of passengers carried at any time involve.sueh a higher rate on the seating heels. The opposite does not apply, and I see no reason why the owner of a, 1 ten lorry, having obtained, a. lice-gee as for a vehicle seating not more than six persons,, should not carry goods, within the legal axle weight' of the vehicle, in. which event he would, I assume-, be liable to. duty at 212 only insteadof 230. Further, a vehicle-licensed to seat six persons may carry, ap
, parently, any number of additional persons so long as they are not seated 1 Heaven alone knows what would happen if the people sat on the floor ! COM; Tnercial users will find that a booklet published by the Automobile Association for the use of their industrial section endorses the view I have taken, and' informs the reader what the law is, and not what it was possibly intended to be.
May I put my conclusions as concisely as possible? Members of the Commercial Mater Users Association may then compare my interpretation with that of the solicitor to that Association:—
(1) If the registration authority licenaes a goodscarrying vehicle on the horse-power basie, no penalty in incurred if the vehicle is generally, but not always, used for the carriage of .goods, even if the duty on the unladen. w-eightbsisis higher than on the horse-' power basis.. (Y) in.. such eases the registration authority must allow the 25 per cent, rebate-in the case of a pre-1913 engine.
(e) The owner of a vehicle licensed as a hackney vehicle to carry passengers may, whatever the seating capacity, also convey. go,oodse-even if the duty payable on the basis of unladen weight is higher than' the day paid on the basis of seating capacity. Poasilgtooxiae.nae reaisteation authorities will refuse
to issue ea* applicanta who believe my -yiew to be caseeet and wish to act upon it. If so, a somewhat ditiftenh elteratttive kunst be faced: –
(a) 'Fe , te4,44, ea duty at the coereet rate. on the appropeiate epplie,aticrg form, and run. the vehicle
without a licenee. IA this evenb an undoubted offence would be incurred, although it is doubtful if any court would inflict a penalty' if they were advised that my views of the law are sound ; or (b) To proceed by writ of mandamus against the registration author#y to. compel them to register and lieseese as desired.
In this, case, the authority may plead that they have a discretion, but I fail to see how this can be a successful plea., as the result of the first principle above enunciated would be that an applicant, whose vehicle is compelled. to be licensed on the basis of unladen weight, cannot use such vehicle for any other purposes than the carriage of goods, whereas he states, in fact that he wishes to use it, for other than these purposes. It is ridiculous if the authority, on the one hand, can compel the owner of a vehicle to have a licence on the horse-power basis, while, on the other, it is able to. refuse to another applicant this very licence which, on the same: aesumption, it is compelling the first to take out.
Such, thmas are the alternatives and, ae. your contributor states, they are not put, forward with the object of enabling owners to evade. the Act, but rather with the idea of taking advantage of the only interpretation of the Act which is, in law, sound. The Act as drafted is not only impossible to understand, but but the duties for which registration autherities are asking. are severe-upon the great mass of the smaller commercial users, For. reasons which it is even new quite impossible to appreciate, a method of taxation which was proporttonae to user, weight, and speed, and Which was payable automatically, and with the least degree of Inconvenienee and irritation,, has. been abandoned, for a. method which has eaused alreadythe most intense dissatisfaction, and which infull of the most absurd and inequitable consequences that can possibly be imegined, The Act requires a decision of the courts upon every line, and whatever be the decisione upon the points I have mentioned, I -can see nothing hut chaos and confusion ahead, to the great detriment of the industry. as a whole.,
• May I, finally, say that the Motor Legislation Committee, in resisting the Act originally, and in continuing to resist it, within the law, did so and do so,
not, as it was said by some of their critics, on behalf only of the so-called pleasure motorist, but on behalf of the whole, of the.British motor trade,, and last,, but not least, on behalf of what they knew and know, to be the best interests of the mass of the owners of commercial motor vehicles in the country.