FALSE INCOME RETURN

Evening Star, Issue 18239, 2 April 1923, Page 5

FALSE INCOME RETURN

PENALTY OF £40,000. LONDON .MAN'S CASE. The summons against Mr Arthur Henry 7 Benson, aged sixty-three years, a wellknown London man, in connection with alleged false super-tax returns, was .withdrawn at Bow Street Police Court. London, recently, on account of Mr Benson's ill-health. But it was slated (hat he had had to pay £20,500 arrears and a penalty of £40,000. Sir Richard Muir, who appeared for the Inland Revenue, said Mr Benson was charged with making falso returns for his super-tax for the four years 1918-19-20-21. In such eases the Board of Inland Revenue could either proceed by aclioip for penalties, which were usually three times the amount of the duty, or they could lake criminal proceedings, in this case they decided on a criminal prosecution, but since that time other facts bad come to their knowledge which had caused them to alter their views, and they now thought the proper course was to apply to the conrl for consent to take such action that would make it possible for thorn to recover penalties instead of proceeding with the case. Thev thought that the interests of justice and the public interest generally would be host served by the course which they now proposer! to adopt, Mr Benson was a very wealthy man. Each year since super-tax was first imposed he had made false returns. Giving instances of Mr Benson's income and returns, Sir Richard gave the following figures :

The insult of (hose returns. .Sir Richard said, was a loss to the revenue of £20.300. Sir Richard then road a certificate from' Lord Dawson, of Penn, and another doctor lo tlie effect that Mr Benson’s health would he seriously endangered if ho were obliged to attend at court, and said the fact.” had been submitted <o the Attorneyflenorai, who was agreeable to the course now suggested. .The result' of Mr Benson's action, from the point of view of the revenue, was, Sir Richard added, that already he had paid the arrears of £20,300, and if the magistrate acceded to the present application lie would also pay a penalty of £40,000. In view ot Mr Bensons health it was doubtful whether, even if convicted, he would he sentenced to imprisonment, and such a line as £40.000 would he wry improbable. tjir (,'liartres BiroiV (lie magistrate, said that, stripped of all legal phraseology and coming down to the facts, what it came to was that Mr Ben-mu had swindled the Kxcheqner oul ot £20.000, that he had returned that amount, and that in respect of the fraud he had been fined the sum of £40,000.

The tine was rort;iinly a very large one, ihk! lie would not- have consented to that, course unless he lind been satisfied that the state of Afr Tenson s healtli was a matter which he was entitled to take into consideration. Therefore, he agreed to (lie oourse suggested. Sir Chartres added that when cases were withdrawn from these courts the matter was alwavs considered elsewhere, and if he were 'wrong the case could ho considered at another place and on a intiiro occasion.

Year. Tni-c rot uni. False return. 1916-17 .. . ...£19,877 £11,275 1917-18 .. . .. 21,752 10,229 1921-22 .. , ... 56; 161 16.612