DEFAULTING TAXPAYER

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 77, 27 September 1924, Page 23

DEFAULTING TAXPAYER

CAMPAIGN BY TAX DEPARTMENT

FINES BIPOSED,

"This is a continuation of the campaign against defaulting taxpayers. There are still a large number of people who treat their obligations under the Act lightly, but the serious view tha Department takes is evidenced by the fact that the maximum penalty is fixed at £100, and the minimum penalty at £2," remarked Mr. J. M. Tudhope, of the Crown Law Office, in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when several prosecutions were brought by the Commissioner of Taxes against business men who had failed to furnish income tax returns by the prescribed time. "AVhat we hope to impress on the public by these prosecutions," said Mr. Tudhope, "is that every person who holds land of the unimproved value of £SCO or over, every person who is in the receipt of a salary or income of £250 a year or more, and every person who is in business on his own account, whether he is making a profit or loss, must furnish a return of land or income. We hope to bring this home to the public by these prosecutions." A CASE OF NEGLECT. "This is another case of neglect," remarked Mr. Tudhope of Ernest Ackroyd, of Petone, a worsted yarn spinner, who pleaded guilty to failing to furnish an income return for 1924. Counsel said that there was no suggestion of evasion, but defendant had been "troublesome from year to year." His income was about £430, Defendant explained that he had never studied the Act. His Worship imposed a fine of £10, and 7s costs. "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER." "This is a similar case," declared counsel in regard to a Wellington carrier named Robert Adams. "Just the usual troublesome case of neglect. This defendant is a successful business man who ought to have known better. He is connected with the carrying firm of Adams and Blyth, and failed to furnish returns for 1921, 1922. 1923, and 1924." The sum of £60, the tax payable last year, had been paid. His Worship: "You are a business man, and you ought to know that the returns must go in." A fine of £10 and 7s costs was imposed. "NO EVASION." A land agent in business at Petone, William Croft, pleaded guilty to having failed to furnish income returns for 1922, 1923, 1924. Counsel said no retuni had been made since 1920. When returns Were made they were not accepted by the defendant pending investigation. Mr. W. E. Leicester, who appeared for defendant, said it was not a case of continued neglect. There hnil been no attempt on the part of defendant to evade payment of tax. It was a case of where ft "little knowledge is a dangerous thing," because his client's income had not reached £250, and consequently defendant thought he was nob compelled to send in a, return. Since 1920 defondunt had not been earning a great deal, and had had a hard strug° glo to keep his family of five children. Tho Magistrate remarked that the man was not in a, very good. financial way. He would bo fined £5. "HARD TO PERSUADE." "A bad case of neglect,". was how I Mr. Tudhope described the circumstances in connection with an Eltham farmer named Donald Forsyth, who was ! charged with failing to make an income return for 1923, and a land tax return for 1924. Counsel said that default as- ' seasment had been made since 1916, as defendant had made no return whatever since that date. Defendant held land of an unimproved value of £6480, tho tax payable being £35. In regard to his income, default assessment was made in 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924, and tax amounting to £54 was payable. Defendant was a prosperous fanner in tho Taranaki district, and was a. director of several big dairying companies. "He is a hard man to persuade that the tax must bo paid," declared counsel. The Magistrate imposed a fine of £25 on each charge. IN BAD HEALTH. "I was originally instructed to press for a houvy penalty in this case, but I think counsel has something to say in regard to defendant's health," remarked Mr. Tudhope, in regard to a Wellington painter named Thomas M'Nee, who was charged with failing to make iiwme returns for 1921, 1922, 1923. 19144. Counsel said default assessment had been made ever since 1916. Appearing for the defendant, Mr. W. E. Leicester traced how his client's health had broken down, and his business had consequently fallen away. He was a. married man with five children. His Worship remarked that hs could hardly impose a heavy penalty. A fine of £2 was imposed on tho first charge, and the remaining chargea were adjourned for four weeks to enable defendant to make returns. FINED £200. Furnishing false income returns for 1920, 1921, 1922, t^d 1923 constituted charges against a, Wellington butcher named William Joseph Wolland. Mr. Tudhope said defendant was in business in a large way, and in each of the years in question he made a return of his income and paid the tax assessed. Recently an income tax inspector visited his place, and made some startling discoveries. The investigation extended for four years, and it disclosed a deficiency of £4218, defendant's income totalling £6857, as against a return of £2639. He paid tax amounting to £105, whereas tiix of £874 should have been paid; in effect, the revenue having been defruuded of £769. For the year ending 1922 defendant paid instalments amounting to £2000 on properly in cash from his receipts. He explained to the department that he did not know much about figures, and blamed the mistakes or. to the givl clerk. On behalf of Wolland, Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell said defendant employed two persons to make out the returns, Wolland having nothing to do with the figures at all. His Worship remarked that he thought the defendant must have known that Jiia income was greater than the returns showed. He imposed a fine of £200, £50 on each of the four charges.