The Assistant Secretary to the Treasury forwards the following letter from the Premier of Western Australia for advice:

I am informed by the State Commissioner of Taxation that when two of his officers, who are Inspectors under the Stamp Act, were receiving personally a refund of income tax exceeding £1 from the Commonwealth Taxation Department in Perth, they were proceeding to affix and cancel a duty stamp of Id as required by law, when the Paying Officer said: 'There is no necessity for you to affix a duty stamp, we do not require it'. The Inspectors, however, insisted on giving a duly stamped receipt in compliance with the requirements of section 10 of the 1913 Amending Stamp Act, which, as recently amended, reads as follows:

If upon payment of an amount of one pound or upwards in any case where a receipt would be liable to duty, the person who receives the payment does not give or tender to the person who makes the payment a receipt in writing duly stamped, the person who receives such payment shall be guilty of an offence, and on conviction shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding ten Pounds.

As a receipt, duly stamped, is compulsory in connection with payments of fl or over by virtue of the section above quoted, whether the person receiving payment desires it or not, I venture to suggest that Commonwealth officers be instructed not to advise any person to commit a breach of the law in question, but rather that they will assist in a due compliance therewith.

I am of opinion that on the principle laid down by the High Court in the case of D'Emden v. Pedder 1 C.L.R. 91, section 10 of the Amending Stamp Act 1913 of Western Australia cannot be held to apply to receipts given for refunds of Commonwealth income tax.

It would, therefore, not be proper for the Commonwealth to instruct its officers that by advising people not to stamp receipts for such refunds they are advising them to commit a breach of the law.

[Vol. 15, p. 204]