§ I propose at the same time to correct a small anomaly, introduced as an—I believe—accidental effect of the legislation of 1894, which gives rise to a very considerable loss of revenue every year. Where property subject to a life interest does not fall into possession until after the death of the prospective beneficiary, only one estate duty is payable, namely, as in respect of settled property. But where it falls into possession in his lifetime, two estate duties are payable, namely, one on the transmission of the property to him, and one on the transmission of the property from him. It is, of course, a matter of indifference to the ultimate taker whether the decease of the life tenant is prior or subsequent to the decease of his own testator; yet, in the former case, it 515 comes to him charged with two duties, and, in the latter, charged with one duty only. My proposal is that such property should be treated, as before 1894, in the same way in the latter as in the former contingency. The estimated advantage of this alteration to the revenue of the current financial year is £250,000, and £375,000 in 1910–11 and future years.