FALSE TAX RETURNS BRING £250 FINE

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30092, 28 March 1963, Page 9

FALSE TAX RETURNS BRING £250 FINE

A man who ladled to include his profits from bookmaking in his returns of income was fined £250 by Mr A P. Blair, SM., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Joseph Howard, aged 40, a freezing worker, pleaded not guilty to five changes of wilfully making false returns of income lor the years ended March 31. 1953, 1954, 1956, 1957, and 1959. He was convicted on all charges. Mr L. H. Moore appeared for Howard and Mr I. C. J. Polson prosecuted for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

Mr Polson said the total income not returned was £2248 3s 7d, and the income and social security tax not paid was £696 7s 3d. There was no question that the returns were false, but he had to decide whether the returns had been wilfully falsified, the Magistrate said. Essentially the defence was that when Howard put in the returns he did not know profits from bookmaking had to be included. The defence claimed he had no mens rea or guilty mind.

Attention had to be focused on the defendant’s state of mind at the critical times, what he said to the tax investigator and in the wit-ness-box, and his conduct, said the Magistrate. “I must hold that, as far as his dealings with the inspector are concerned, his conduct does not assist in his claim of lack of mens rea. He did not make a frank disclosure as would be expected from a man who had made an honest mistake. He did not admit to the inspector that he was a bookmaker, nor did he refer to the excuse, raised since, that he did not know profits from bookmaking had to be included ip his return,” said the Magistrate.

“This is hard to understand, as he had received a letter from the department previously stating the position. An innocent man would have said at once: ‘I have made a mistake and should have included the

bookmaking profits.’ The defendant diid not do this. Instead he attempted to mislead the inspector and gave false information about his dealings with the TA.B. and said he had made a profit from his car dealings when a loss had been incurred. He also gave false information about the amount of money he had spent on his house. “All this, in my opinion, is not consistent with the conduct of an innocent man, but rather with that of a man who had something to hide. The defendant was not entirely frank in the witness-box.

“I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that he knew he was required to return his profits from bookmaking, and I find him guilty on all charges,” said the Magistrate. Submissions Mr Moore said it was a reasonable inference that the defendant had not included his bookmaking profits because he was liable to get into further trouble. He had been fined £2OO on one conviction for bookmaking, and a year later he had been •sentenced to a month’s imprisonment on a similar charge. “With every move Howard made he got himself deeper into trouble,” said Mr Moore. “He is liable for substantial penalties from the department after placing himself in an almost impossible position. It is only now that he is able to get out of it. He has faced his responsibilities, and the outstanding tax has been paid.” Howard was married, and as a result of his second conviction for bookmaking he faced considerable matrimonial difficulties. He had paid serious penalties for his activities in many ways. He would never offend again. The defied xncy in tax of about £BO a year indicated that he was not in a big way, Mr Moore said. Howard was fined £5O on the charge relating to 1953, £5O on that for 1954, £25 for 1956, £25 for 1957, and £ 100 for 1959. Costs amounted to £lB.