Government spokesmen are reported to have said that the tax on the sale of inherited property “seems” so severe mainly because the heirs undervalue the property for death duty purposes.

This is totally incorrect as regards pre-war tenanted buildings, as these buildings are often more a liability than an asset, successive government have accepted valuations based on the static rent usually capitalised at five per cent. After all, the government was not proposing or accepting anything revolutionary as the capital value is closely associated with the return. Indeed, any tax on these buildings is in reality a tax on a loss as these buildings could only be disposed of at give-away prices, if at all.

As regards other buildings, the government statement is no compliment to those government-appointed A & CEs who are purposely commissioned to check valuations.

Granted that the capital gains tax exists in several English-speaking countries, it is unjustly applied locally because (a) no proper consideration is given to the decline of the purchasing power of the currency (b) a loss cannot be offset against a gain (c) a small amount of profit is not tax-free.

While on the subject, it may be pertinent to point out that it was also a Nationalist government which removed completely the tax on the sale of inherited immobile property. Was this done solely to lure the electorate, so that, once re-elected, the party would introduce more draconian measures?

No wonder that even some Nationalist supporters feel they would be betraying their off-spring if they vote for their party.

Joseph E. Boffa

SAN GWANN