LAND OWNERS WARNED.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 25 September 1924, Page 10

LAND OWNERS WARNED.

ASSESSMENTS OF LAND

FAILURE TO RENDER RETURNS

'Owners of land who fail to render the necessary 'returns on which land tax is assessed were warned during tlie nearing ol a case in the Magistrate’s Court this morying—before Mr J. S. Mar ton, M.iVl. —that the Commissioner of Taxes intends to ask for heavy penalties against offenders. The case was one in which tlie Commissioner ol .iixes (Mr \\ . H. Matthews) proceeded against the Taranaki Amusement Comjjany (Mr D. G. Smart) for failing to lurnish the Department with a return of land in respect to which land tax was assessable, on or before April 8 1924. X plea of guilty was entered.

Mr Matthews statc-d that action wa taken under section 143 of the Lam. and Income Tax Act. In this particular case he understood that defauii assessments were made in 1921-23 inclusive; The Commissioner desired hin. tc point out the inconvenience cause. -0 the Department as a result of th. failure on the part of taxpayers to render returns. Despite the fact that notice that returns should be mad had been published in the Gazette, am. had been displayed in post offices and other public buildings, many taxpaye. were not fulfilling their obligations. Ji •was not suggested in the case of tm defendant company tjiat the failure to furnish tne return had been with tin. object of evading payment of the tax. ihe Department, however, v ere out . vei v considerable trouble and expense, and default assessment nearly doublet the -work of the officers, ’Offend?!, were now being prosecuted as a warn.ng to taxpayers generally. The pre •sent ease was the first of its kind in the district for some time, and while the Department did not press for a heavy penalty in this particular iu- . ■ n •. .t should be understood that ii i itui-e very much heavier penalties would be asked- for. The impression had got abroad that failure to make returns -was not regarded seriously bv •die Commissioner, and the present action was taken with a view to dispelling that idea. Mr Smart urged that the x-ase was not a really serious one, and this year the return had been furnished on June 4. The secretary of the company was under the impression that tlie return would be in time if furnished with the income tax return, due on June 2. It was .purely a technical breach, and it seemed rather hard on the company that the -Commissioner had decided to prosecute in this particular ease. The company was not in a very flourishing financial condition : in fact it had lost all its assets, and it was more than •ikelv that the secretary would have to pay any fine that might he imposed out. of his own pocket. Long fief ore