Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

TAXING FAIR PROFITS.
SCOURT'S DIFFIOULT TASK.
SYDNEY, Thursday.
In the Profiteering Prevention Court
to-day, his IIonor Judge Beeby continued
his inquiry under section 14 of the
Profiteering Prevention Act, which
gives theo Court power to investigate
cmunplalnts and fix reanonablo prices and
charges; and section 10, empowering it
to fix maximum prices and maximum
rates of profit.
The discussion on the principles which
tthe Court should adopt in proceedings
under these sections was continued fromt
yestordey. The argument arose on Molon
day out of an inquiry under section
14 of the Act into a complaint that
Grace Brothers had offered for sale a
d"ress material known as drillette at a
prolit equal to 73 per cent. Mr. Street
appeared for the Crown, and Ir. Pike
and Mr. Worthington for Grace Broth'
ere.
teIr. Street, continuing his argument.
said tie act put very great discretion
ary powers in the judge's hands.
"The question," said his IHIonor, "is,
am I justified as one man in the com
munlty in stating what is a fair rate
of profit for a capitalist now, and what
was a fair rate before the war?" hle
Inight find it necessary to in
form the Legslelature that there
wes not .enough direction in t?e
Act to enable him to administer I•.
Even if he found it possible to i1 profi
6n a basis of turnover clearly it would
not apply ali round. The custom In this
country had always been to calculate
profit on turnover. It wsee a questlOd
whiether it should rather be based on
foapltl, He pointed' out the difieronte -
that existed beaween a shop with six orf
seven hundred pounds invested and one
in which say £10,000 lad ben sunk. To
allow each a profit of 50 per cent on
capital woueld give tie mall a bare living
and another all enormous pIrofit.
'T he argumenut Mr. Pike put to the Court
was tilat the Act was designed to pro-:
vent tidute profit malting during the war,
butl(nifa man was entitled to a third pro
it before the war. was he teot entitled
to tie same nosy that tite ear was over?
To make him take anything less was
taing his money away from him. -Tho
.raeder had to sell on the basis of what.
it would cost him to replico his stock,
not on what the stockl cost himt. He sub
mitted that when an Act was ambiguous
tile Court should consider the result of
It In administoring It.
His Honor: I once put that view to
the Full Court myself and was veryt
severely reitrlmnnded.
oMr Plo said thant if profit was going
to be based on cost it would have to bhe
assumed that tioe price of a thing a's
the value of it. which was absurd. The
argument that the Court had to look to
tithe not profit when determining a fixed
rate was put forward under a fallacy.
The net pront was not a cash pront. The
actual profit went into tihe business.
His Honor reserved judgment.
$