SUPREME COURT Appeal Dismissed In Tax Case

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30559, 30 September 1964, Page 8

SUPREME COURT Appeal Dismissed In Tax Case

An appeal by the AttorneyGeneral against .a magistrate’s decision in 1962 upholding appeals by Robin Alfred Bryan Williamson against tax assessments for 1949 and 1953-1956 inclusive, was dismissed by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the Attorney-General, and Mr B. J. Drake for Williamson, a service station attendant.

Mr Roper submitted that the magistrate misdirected himself on the onus of proof. Williamson’s net assets in 1948 were £2107, but on March 31, 1956, his assets were £12,094. The increase of about £lO,OOO had not been accounted • for in income returns in those years. His explanation for not filing returns for the years 1949 to 1953 inclusive was that he received the money as gifts from his grandmother, mother and an aunt. His evidence was: he'received £3600 from his grandmother, £3OO a year from 1936 till 1946 from his mother, and lesser amounts from his aunt, and had saved £lOOO. He had kept the money in a gas stove he had converted into a safe.

The personal saving ceased in 1946, when Williamson married, said Mr Roper. The evidence showed that when Williamson Worked he earned from £lOO to £2OO a year. Mr Roper submitted that the magistrate in effect said he did not accept Williamson’s explanation that the money came from gifts. He said he did not know where the money came from, but that it could not have been income.

Mr Roper submitted that the magistrate was not justified in his finding unless he had established the source of the money.

His Honour: I can say this, while you may not be able. Is it your view that Mrs Clifford is providing the money? Mr Roper: Yes. Mr Roper added that there could have been payments apart from wages which could (have attracted taxes, and there was no reason to believe Williamson’s story of substantial idleness over the years and reject the source of the cash payments. There were several odd features of the case, said Mr Roper, It seemed that for some years Williamson did not work at all. His wife

knew nothing of the purchase of a property in Cashel street. The wife never saw the contents of the gas stove. While Williamson had substantial sums in the gas stove he raised mortgages to buy houses. In 1950, when he had between £l7OO and £lBOO, he pleaded virtual poverty when the Commissioner of Inland Revenue asked for about £lO as. social security tax. The money remained uninvested over a number of years but was all used within 12 months to buy two houses. The property at 20 Armagh street was virtually handed over to Mrs Clifford with no return to Williamson. Mr Drake said it was two years since the notice of appeal was given, and criticised the length of time in bringing the appeal. Williamson had been placed in a virtual state of jeopardy because of the protracted period. There was nothing he could do about it, as there was no ■ remedy available to hint to have the appeal dismissed for want of prosecution.

The magistrate had been fully aware of the ohus of proof, said Mr Drake.

Williamson had not discussed his affairs with, either his family or close friends, and his'actions could possibly have been termed miserly. The fact that Williamson did not conform to the norm in financial matters did not justify a finding on the evidence that the magistrate had had been wrong, he said. His Honour said though the magistrate had treated Williamson’s evidence with some reserve the whole evidence from all witnesses was consistent with Williamson’s sworn statement that he had had no taxable income. He felt satisfied that Williamson had satisfied the onus of proof, and though the magistrate might have had doubts about the source of at least some of the money used to purchase capital assets those moneys were not moneys Williamson could have derived as income.

The magistrate had therefore applied the proper principles of law in- his assessment of the evidence, and his conclusion on that evidence was that Williamson had satisfied him the onus of proof had been discharged, said his Honour,- dismissing the appeal, with costs to Williamson.