Supreme Court Appeals On Tax Evasions Fail

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29972, 6 November 1962, Page 12

Supreme Court Appeals On Tax Evasions Fail

The amounts of deficiency in the rent

receipts of a Christchurch landlady, Annette

Mary Eleanor Jane Clifford, were too great, and too consistent, in the absence of some explanation, “to permit the intrusion of mistake, muddlement, negligence or carelessness,” said Mr Justice Henry in a reserved judgment yesterday on her appeal against conviction on nine tax evasion charges.

His Honour dismissed Clifford’s appeal against a Magistrate’s Court conviction on each of nine charges of wilfully making false

returns of income received during the years ended March 31, 1950 to 1958 inclusive. The appeals against penalty were also dismissed and the £lOO fines on each charge affirmed.

His Honour said Mr R. E. Harding, appearing with Mr P. H. T. Alpers for the appellant, had submitted that the only obligation under the legislation was to make a correct statement of the difference between income and expenditure, contending that no form of return had been validly prescribed as provided by the act. "I do not think that it is necessary to pursue this argument—.interesting though it may be from a theoretical point of view." said his Honour. “She did make returns on a form, whether or not she was legally bound to do so on such a form, and whether such form was legally prescribed or not.” His Honour said Clifford was bound to pay tax on her assessable income, and she did make a return of what she claimed was her assessable income. “I do not find it necessary to traverse the argument in all its detail,” he said, “because the evidence shows that it is a proper inference to draw from the evidence that the assessable income was substantially understated in each year.” He said the evidence as a whole bore the imprint of a systematic suppression of re-

ceipts. In his view it had been demonstrated that a comparison between the number of tenements which Clifford had in each year and the gross rents returned showed that a very substantial sum was not included in the returns for rent each year. “I think it impossible to come to any conclusion on the evidence ether than that she has intentionally and substantially understated her receipts for rents during each year, and that such understatement has reflected itself in the assessable figure returned.” said his Honour. “If the total receipts for rents are substantially understated, I am satisfied that it is proper to conclude that the assessable income was also substantially understated.” There was ample evidence on which a conviction might be entered on each information.

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue was represented by Mr C. M. Roper, with him Mr R. C. Savage, at the appeal hearing.