Legacy Duty.
The Times, 1824-02-03T00:00:00

TO THE EDITOE OF THE TIMtES: Sir,-As you have very properly, in many of your papers, most iustly exposed to view the grievous and oppressive burden of the iegacy duty, You will oblige a constant reader of your paper, if you will insert, the following statement, in order to show the public how unequally this odious operates :- FQUAI ITY OF TAXATION. I live near a great man of large landed property, (say 20,0001. a.vear and upwarils), under whom I hold a small estate tor a ttrra Ofvears, determinableon three lives, for which 1 amn charged all the lCing's taxes, rates, &c., the same au if it were freehold. It is my inrention to leave such estate to a distrssed brother with a large faMrily of childivan. I consider (taking all circumstances of hnrce into account) it will at my death be worth 5001. Supposing that to he the real value, my brother mnust prove my will, the stamps ot which will, for the commission and the probate, be ill. Ss., thsr legacv dutv 151.. making together 211. 5s., upwards of S per cent. on the capitlI exclusive of the roctor's bill, &c. Now had this esats heen held for three lives absolute, without any term of yars mcn' tiored. or freehold, no duty would have attached. If the gret man (under whsor. I hoel such estate) dies, 1kfamily will niot have to pay a single shilling duty upon the wh of hi 20.000l.a-year, when (by the foregoing statemaent, if given to a bro ther, rhe suti of 12,0001. ought r be paid, reckoning the value a only 20 years' purchase. Why so estate for three lives absolute i eaxetnpted, when an estat for a term of years determinable on three lives (which is of equalvs lue) pays such a heavy duty, is not to be accounted fbr, unless, for sooth, becauce it is ca. ed property. Is this just ? Yet so isithelaw Again,-If a poor man lavs out from his hard earnings the sur of' 201. in thepurchaseof a frielitdt1 cottage the stanp duity on th conveyance is 40g. or 10 per cent. (the sauie 3uty onlv extends to an purchase above 201. ar.d under 501.) If a rich nman fays vat l00,000Q or upwards, nay-even a million-he pays-4,OOOL only. Now by tb common rule of three, if a purchase of 201. pays a auty of 40s.. porchase of 100,0001. ought to pay 10,9001. instead of L.OOMI. onl5 so that the pocr man pas tenl times as. much in prepottoa to to rich) man., .and twenty timnes as much on a purchase of 2OO0^0? The 40s.paid by the poor tnan is of more consequence to himrtht the IO.OQOL would be to the rich mabrt January "1, H14. Vil . 0- TO THE EDITOR OF THIE TIMES. Sir,-lYour attention having beerr of-late ditectedt to the vexaiol- lrovisions of the Legacy Act, pennit me, through the medium your widely circulated journal, to notice another most serious grit.; auce-'.nariely, that in estirating the duty tobe paid on the probe, or letters of adminiitration, thedtbts due fromh the testator or inte-2 tate are not tzren into account; so that the next of kin br legatea' by the absortion of largre dutty, are frequently left withaut a .h'i ling ;'when, in common justice, -person can only be .codsidered .'- dying wortli the cletr iuripldi after payyment of debts. In those csz'J. hoWevTer, whtee any sui'Lus :emrans, t-may be 'observedi, thatt next of kin or residuary legatee nctunlly ,a=%es n 4o&b.le paymel- viz.; first, in respect of the probate, 'r letters of dtininmsttatio end hext, upos the arnount'taen by way nt legacy.duty. r' * Another vexatious proceeding, etrndriating from the .egae3 Dae office, mav idso be noticed, i. c. tbat-of iheKfrequrentrtsbmisslo -uripaid lettezsb, containing clause6 from various acts as to pebalni &O htlik continjally lwarassing,and perplexing executoes and nd nistrators, before a -reasonable. iule has b lapsed for making ?P 4ifferent accounts. This over-oflidoussess in nny cases, des reprobation- T'ie Stamp Actc, In generil;are bregnant wlith oppresrve ceD ments, wliich, it is hoped, will underg a strictrtv'nosimthe,, I besMon al rarrname4 I VUrH, OA JL EIA "I LEGACY DUTY.