TAX EVASION DECISION

Press, Volume C, Issue 29624, 21 September 1961, Page 17

TAX EVASION DECISION

Vuleta To Pay Total Of £516 (N.Z. Press Association) TIMARU, Sept. 20. Fines, costs and solicitors’ fees totalling £516 were imposed on John Vuleta. 67, retired, of Timaru by Mr N. M. Izard, S.M., in a reserved decision given in the Timaru Magistrate’s Court today, concerning nine charges of alleged tax evasion, “vuleta was found guilty on each of nine charges of making false returns of income for the years 1951 to 1959 inclusive. The defendant was convicted and fined £5O and ordered to pay costs of £ 1 10s on each charge. Solicitors' fees of £lO 10s were awarded k against the defendant on the first charge, with fees of £5 5s on each of the remaining eight charges.

After a three-day hearing which ended on September 8. the Magistrate adjourned the proceedings until today for a decision. Mr M. C. Gresson prosecuted for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Mr O. G'. Stevens, with him Mr M. J. Green appeared for Vuleta. For the nine years at issue. Vuleta's income as returned totalled £21.408 9s 6d. Income previously assessed was £21,764 16s 7d; income now assessed is £35.178 4s. The income deficiency is £13.413 7s sd. The total income tax previously assessed was £4607; the total now assessed is £10,289, leaving an income tax deficiency of £5682. With the addition of deficient social security tax, the grand total is £6767.

Dealing with the question of penalty, Mr Stevens asked the Court to take into account the - “very substantial amount of tax” the defendant would have to pay. ‘‘l also ask the Court to consider this man’s education,” said Mr Stevens. “He has not the advantage of a person born in this country. I ask ’ the Court to treat him leniently and to conclude that this was not wilful, gross and deliberate subversion of the facts, as is so often the case with a normal trader.” Mr Stevens also mentioned that the Court, apart. from (he years conceded (1951 and 1959), had found that the defendant’s income was derived as “a professional gambler.” The Crown had failed to prove its substantial allegation that the defendant was a bookmaker throughout the whole nineyear term. That fact should have a bearing on the matter of costs, he said.

“I have got to look at this matter on the basis of the amount involved and the period concerned,” said the Magistrate. “I can't help feeling that this has been a further gamble on Vuleta’s part. He risked the prospect of being found out and being liable to a large amount of tax. This Is one of the times when he has lost.” Although he would not impose the maximum penalty of £lOO, he felt dutybound to impose a substantial penalty, the Magistrate added. No doubt the Commissioner would take that into account when deciding what penal taxes he would impose. The maximum penal tax was triple the amount of deficient tax.

“Any penalty I may impose is small compared with the penal taxes,” said the Magistrate.