TAX INQUIRY Mr Lake Refuses To Name Companies

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31123, 28 July 1966, Page 3

TAX INQUIRY Mr Lake Refuses To Name Companies

“The Press” Special Service

WELLINGTON, July 27. The Minister of Finance (Mr Lake) early this morning refused to disclose to Parliament the names of major companies involved in an apparent multi-million tax evasion inquiry.

The annual report of the Inland Revenue Department disclosed the department had made additional assessments during the last fiscal year amounting to more than £4.6 million.

Mr W. W. Freer (Opp., Mt. Albert.) said six special investigators had discovered about £3.8 million of this sum during inquiries made into major business enterprises. He asked Mr Lake how many major companies were involved. Mr Lake said assessments had been made and were likely to be contested. A small number of companies were involved. Questioned further, he said

the number was more than U- ?. Mr Freer: The names of individual taxpayers and small shopkeepers who default are published but he is not prepared to say how many companies are involved. It is absurd. Dr. A. M. Finlay (Opp., Waitakere) said the whole matter was in a most alarming state of concealment. Mr Lake said the Government had no desire to hide anything. The taxpayers concerned had the right of objection and they had objected. The commissioner was considering what further action he might take. Mr R. J. Tizard (Opp., Pakuranga) wanted to know why a “penny dodger” had his name listed in the Gazette but not the big firms who had been involved in previous years. Dr. Finlay said if the firms had objected, the commissioner had an automatic responsibility to state a case to the Taxation Board of Review. Mr Lake said the commissioner ' was assembling 'material, which might take [some time. I If and when a case were stated to the board and any penal tax were subsequently imposed, names of the taxpayers involved would be ; gazetted. Mr Tizard said it appeared ' that additional lax assessed over the last few years totalled some £14,195.000. j “Is this a realistic claim or I is it something just dreamed up for purposes of argument?” he asked.

Mr Lake did not reply but! indicated that the £14.195.000 cited did not represent the' amount involved in the case’ in dispute.

The case, involving pricing arrangements and other inter ■ company transactions with overseas principals, was first reported by the Inland Revenue Department some years ago and published rumours since—which have gone undenied—have identified the 'firms involved as oil companies. I The transactions, it is said, first came to light after the 'formation of a consortium to paunch the Marsden Point oil [ refinery.