INCOME TAX CASE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13717, 26 April 1910, Page 5

INCOME TAX CASE.

BOWRON BROTHERS CONVICTED

THE MAXIMUM FINE IMPOSED

J Mr H. W. Bishop, S.M., gave his rei served judgment at the Magistrate's j Court yesterday in the case of Wilt liaiu Morris Tyers v. William Bowron, i George Boivron, and George John Smith. The following is the text of the- judgment:—The informant in this • case is William Morris Tyers, an inj spector under the Land and Income ! Assessment Act, 1908, and the defendj ants are William Botvron, George Bow- ! ron. and George John Smith, trading Jin co-partnership as merchants under ! the firm name of Bowron Bros. The ; information charges the defendants I whh committing a breach of section j 106 of the Land and Income Tax As- ] sessment Act, 1908, in that they did, i within the space of three years, to wit, Jon November 6th, 1906, at Christj church, by a certain act. to wit, by j knowingly and wilfully making a f;ijs*» I return in writing in relation to the income of tho said co-partnensbijp l firm of Bowron Bros., affecting that firm's liability to taxation, evade full taxation in respect of income tax. The evidence for the prosecution ceni sists mainly of the sworn testimony of j the informant, sup,T?orted in all essenj tia' particulars by the production of J balance-sheets, statements, and otiier documents pertaining to the case. Xo evidence whatever has been tendered ; on behalf of the defendants, and the ! case for tho prosecution stands wholly uucontradicted. The only.point, therefore, that I have to decide, is as to whether, in my opinion, as it stands. it is sufficiently complete and conclusive to call for a conviction. There can bo no doubt whatever as to this. Tho evidence proves beyond any question, and leaves no margin for doubt, that the defendants have made an absolutely false return, and have done so knowingly and wilfully, with the object of evading payment of their just share of taxation. When I consider the business standing of the firm, the position, commercial and otherwise., of the defendants, the enormous amount of their turnover, and the apparent wealth of •'the parties, the conduct throughout of the defendants seems to be so utterly inexcusable, and the breach of tho law so exceedingly serious, as to call for the infliction of a most substantial penalty. That penalty must be the utmost the law allows. The defendants are convicted and fined one hundred pounds, and are ordered to pay tho costs of the proceedings. I also.' as required by tho section already referred to, inflict an additional fine of treble tho amount of the tax, the payment of which has been ovaded by the defondants. Section ]07 of the Act sets out the manner in which this additional fine shall be ascertained. This is a matter to be dealt with by tho Commissioner of Taxes.

Mr T. G. Russell, who appeared for defendants, asked the Mapistrote to fix the amount of the recognisance required for the appeal. The Magistrate: You must put your application in writing in order to comply with the Justices of the Peace Act. Give notice of your intention to appeal and 1 will fix tho amount.

Mr Stringer: I would ask your Worship to fix the amount of oosts.

The Magistrate: I wanted to get this case out of hand and have not fixed the amount yet. Mr Stringer: It is left to your Worship's discretion, and I think you have full power to allow such costs as' you think fit. . . '

The Magistrate: That is according to the regulations for the conduct of criminal proceedings? Mr Stringer: To* allow the ordinary fee would not pay a tenth pait of the typewriting in this case. The oosts were enormous. The hearing took three days and a half, and the preparation a great many more days. After hearing: Messrs Russell and Strmger in Chambers/the Magistrate fixed the costs payable by defendants at BO guineas. ■ The other two cases against th.c firm were adjourned sine die.