Horse Trainer Charged With Taxation Offences

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28620, 24 June 1958, Page 14

Horse Trainer Charged With Taxation Offences

(New Zealand Press Association)

DUNEDIN, June 23. A plea of not guilty to all charges was entered by Arthur Ernest Didham, a racehorse owner and trainer, of Wingatui, who appeared before Mr J. D. Willis, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court today on nine charges of wilfully making false returns of income.

Mr A. J. H. Jeavons appeared for Didham, and Mr W. F. Thompson represented the Inland Revenue Department. Mr Thompson said that the charges covered the tax years, 1947 to 1955 inclusive. Didham had been interested in racing all his life, and had taken an active part as a jockey, trainer and owner. It had been pointed out that he had a limited education, but qualified assistance had been given to him in his financial affairs during all of the years mentioned in the charges. The departmental investigations had revealed that in the period 1947 to 1955. the income return ed had be.en £ 10.940. whereas the correct amount was assesed at £19,455, making a discrepancy ol £8515, he said. The department, however, had accepted Didham’s explanation that as a partner oi the Henley White House Hotel, purchased in 1953, be was unaware of the understatements made by his partner, who handled all of the hotel’s business, and the sum understated £1960. was deducted from the discrepancy bringing it down to £6555. Apprentices’ Fees

Most of the charges concerned money received as apprentices’ fees which was not included in Didham’s returns. Mr Thompson said. As a trainer, Didham was required to supply board, clothing and £1 in-pocket money to each of his apprentices.* and this amount could be deducted, from his return.

In return. Didham was entitled to half of the riding fees of these apprentices, and under this arrangement, he was entitled to a substantial amount each year. He returned no income a* all from this source, although he deducted the expenses of training and boarding the apprentices, MrThompson said. It was discovered that Didham had received a total of £4416 tn these apprentices’ fees, and had unlawfully deducted £1438 as expenses for training his own horses in the years 1952 to 1955. His Post Office interest was also understated by £56. Didham had admitted the receipt of bonus payments from owners of the winning horses he had trained, but no records had been kept of this. In 1956 alone, records showed thal £1773 was received in this way. Inspector’s Evidence

James Gordon Baines, an Inland Revenue Department inspector, said it. was not possible to obtain a full coverage of Didham s financial affairs for an;- complete year. The figures resulting from the reassessment of Didham’s income for the years 1947 to 1955 had been accepted and the tax on them paid. The original tax was £2038, whereas the tax on the reassessed income was £5014, less the tax on the £1960 for the hotel partnership’s returns. Cross-examined by Mr Jeavons. Baines agreed that Didham had been most co-operative, and had made no attempt to conceal anything. although he was not able to assist to any great degree. Baines said he had been aware that Didham had only £2900 ot his share in the purchase of the hotel in 1953. and was forced to borrow the balance. Didham had told him he was under the impression that the apprentices' fees .claimed were in fact refunds 'or the expanses incurred. The hearing will continue tomorrow.