Clifford. Tax Case Again In Court

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30802, 14 July 1965, Page 16

Clifford. Tax Case Again In Court

The hearing of a default action for £240,747 Is 9d by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue against Annette Mary Eleanor Jane Clifford, a widow and property owner, was adjourned for three weeks by Mr E, S. J. Crutchley, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. The question of costs on the adjpurnment was reserved.

Mr R. E. Harding, of Wellington, appeared for Mrs Clifford. and Mr C. M. Roper for the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. When the case was called Mr Harding handed to the Bench copies of proceedings filed in the Wellington Supreme Court on Monday seeking an injunction to restrain the commissioner from proceeding. “If the facts alleged in the documents are true, and I have the positive assurance from my solicitor that theyare true, the commissioner knows that the amount owing to him is less by a large amount, probably more than by six figures, than the amount for which he seeks judgment,” Mr Harding said.

The commissioner had been appealed to by letter, and on Monday he had said that he was determined to proceed. It was then that the injunction proceedings were filed and served. In the face of them he was still attempting to get judgment. “This, in my submission, amounts to a deliberate and determined attempt to pervert the course of justice, for the defendant is precluded by statute from disputing the amount in these proceedings,” Mr Harding said. “Abuse of Proceedings”

“Surely there can be no dearer case of abuse of proceedings than to attempt deliberately to get judgment for a much larger sum than the claimant knows he is entitled to. It may be that in persisting as he does he hopes by getting judgment today to forestall an injunction; “I can scarcely refrain from adding a comment on the contrast between the public image of himself which the commissioner has sought to build up and his conduct in this case. In the press and in Government hand-outs dear old Uncle Rathgen. . . .” The Magistrate: Perhaps under the circumstances. . . . Mr Harding: I will say no more. Mr Roper said that the Court was not powerless to enter judgment, as Mr Harding had claimed. Mrs Clifford

had objected to the department’s assessment after a case filed early in 1961. Criminal proceedings were later taken against her. Various appeals were disposed of in October, 1963.

Arrangements for the taking of a case stated on June 21 were made on March 2. On June 16 another application was made for an adjournment. Whatever the amount which might finally be paid, the defendant had not even made a token payment on the alleged arrears from 1944 to 1958. The injunction proceedings were not filed until a late hour on Monday afternoon. “No Ban” Mr Roper submitted that there was no ban to prevent the Court from entering judgment, and he asked the Magistrate to adjourn the hearing for only two weeks. The department sought judgment for £240,747 Is 9d although the summons was originally made out for £260,409 5s Id, as Mrs Clifford had paid £19,662 3s 4d in taxes for 1959.

Mr Harding asked for the matter to be adjourned sine die, to be brought on at seven days’ notice, “It is cutting it a bit fine asking for only a fortnight,” he said.