A STUBBORN TAXPAYER

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 97, 19 January 1924, Page 6

A STUBBORN TAXPAYER

TRADER IGNORES DEPARTMENT

ONE OF THE WORST CASES ON RECORD

By Telegraph.— Press Association. Blenheim, January 18.

‘This is a particularly bad case of neglect to fulfil the obligations imposed by the Land and Income Tax Act,” stated the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. C. H. Mills, at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, when two charges against Frederick Hampton Flower, a Kaikoura storekeeper, of failing to furnish income tax returns for the years ended March. 31, 1922, and March 31, 1923, were being heard. Air. Mills said that apparently the defendant had not furnished any returns whatever in 1921 and 1922. An income tax inspector visited Flower at Kaikoura, and investigated his. affairs, and as the result it was found that £563 18s. was due in respect of tax for the period 1912 to 1921 inclusive. After considerable trouble Flower paid about £2OO off this amount, and in October, 1922, the matter was placed in the hands of the Crown Law Office for the recovery of the sum of £357 12s. 7d., representing the arrears for the years 1914 to 1920 inclusive. The Crown Law Office wrote several letters to Flower demanding payment, but without result. Eventually a writ was issued, and judgment was obtained for the amount, but Flower still remained deaf to alt communications from the Crown Law Office until a writ of sale was issued. Finally, on September 11, the amount was recovered. On September 19 the Crown Law Office wrote to Flower by direction of the Commissione. of Taxes, advising, him that unless he furnished returns for the' years 1922 and 1923 informations would be laid and a substantial penalty pressed for. This communication was treated, in the same manner as all other communications—there was no reply; and the present proceedings were taken. Sir. T. E. Maunsell, S.M., after hearing the evidence of Charles J. Dowland, an inspector of the Income 'l ax Department, said that ' the correspondence showed that the Department regarded this as one of the worst cases of neglect on record. The defendant had put the Department to endless trouble and expense in past years, and he had had ample warning that he should furnish returns, but had ignored these warnings. He would impose such a penalty as vtould impress on the defendant the necessity for furnishing returns promptly in future. The defendant was fined £2O on each count, with costs totalling £lO 10s. 2d., a total of £5O 10s. 2d.- He still has to furnish the returns required, and pay the taxes.