Coll 29/56 'Duzdap: question of retention of vice consulates' [‎74r] (149/247)

vault! not appear at ft vat algbt m tnaui& we :&& any valid
mason for rejecting the ■resent demand of the Iranian
satitevitles*
5. In your dei*j>atones hos# i 5-'c53/5 and &G-30/Q
of ;Tuly 99 bA $ 1938, you expressed tl*e view tiiat tlie
authorities were likely to deimnd peyaent of this tax by
I is lajeaty , s Vio^consulate, but I have* no infomation to
show that any olais has been put forward officially until
now. The present note from tnc Ministry for Fereign
U&frlS u rsfiSs
,a.ias
Afihirs does not state the amount claimed, but if the area
of the Vice^Cimsulate is correctly given as one hundred and
twelve tiiousand, c»i© Imndred and eighty one decimal two
five s^u&re sure, and if there has been no change in the
rate of twenty five dinars per sqpare sar, the sua payable
would appear to amount to Rials twenty el Jit th«isand and
forty five and dinars thirty on© (or appixiximtely three
hundred and twenty six pounds at the present rate of
Rial© eighty six to tbs pound.),
a'& : This, as I tinderstmid it, Is a recurrent
annual tax which may be rccurded as a fora of ground rent
payable to the C'rorni (see your despatch Ho# 64 of August
Mth, 1999)# I understaand that all iritlsh subjects
oooupying land in ahedan iwve been paying this tax since
1928, but that not until 1930 (see your despatch Ho*
32/20/7 of September 10th, 1930) was It ever suggested,
even unofficially, tlxat this tax oaould be psid by If is
iiajccty's Yiee- oneulate. In your despatch Ho# 105-20/'O
of November 30t}i, 1932^ you re ported that the authorities
had again epprouonod His Uajesty’a Vlee~ Consul unofficially
on the subject and you stated that it was to be anticipated f
that the dessand, if pressed, would be for rest respective
payment of the tax since 1928# I an not aware whether