MAN WHO REFUSED FAMILY BENEFIT LOSES TAX CLAM

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22822, 17 December 1948, Page 4

MAN WHO REFUSED FAMILY BENEFIT LOSES TAX CLAM

(P.A.) WELLINGTON. Dec. 17. A submission that the payment of family benefits under the Social Security Act was interference with the right of a man to support his family directly out of his own earnings, was made by Cecil Herbert Andrews, a businessman, in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday.

lie was defending a claim against him by the Commissioner of Taxes for £45 Is 4d representing the balance due on social security and national security taxes.

Andrews, who has six children, has

declined to accept—as has his wife—the £2 10s a week .family benefit payable in respect of five of them.

He conducted his own case. He said that the family benefit was in the nature of a State subsidy or gratuity and also that the State should not have first claim on a man's income. The first claim, he submitted, was that of the man’s family.

Mr. Thompson. S.M., gave judgment for the Commissioner, who was represented by Mr. W. R. Birks. Mr. Birks said the claim was for the balance of arreas of social security tax and national security tax for the the years ending March 31, 1943, 1944, 1940 and 1947. Mr. Birks said he understood there was no question as to the correctness of the assessments.