"DASTARDLY ATTACKS."

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 14473, 13 September 1910, Page 6

"DASTARDLY ATTACKS."

INCOME TAX CHARGES.

FURTHER DENIAL BY MR. HEYES.

[BY TELEGRAPH.— PRESS ASSOCIATION.]

Wellington, Monday. In reply to statements made by various speakers in the House of Representatives on Friday night, Mr. P. Heyes, ex-Com-missioner of Taxes, writes to the press claiming his right to be heard. He says: —" I am no longer a civil servant and these unjust attacks are very damaging to me in earning my living. I cannot afford, for political and other reasons, to remain silent under them as I had to do when those matters were being inquired into by two Commissions. In the finding of both these Commissions 1 was exonerated from all dishonest motives or actions, and such has been made public on more than ono ocacsion. My reply now to my accusers is an absolute denial of the truth of all these dastardly attacks upon me, made under shelter of privileges which Parliament affords to members, but not to be abused. I also absolutely deny that they were proved, as alleged by, Mr. T. E. Taylor. If such statements be made outside of Parliament I can promise my traducers something which will make them more careful in making such slanderous statements.

"In the case of Bowron Bros, Mr. Herdman inquires why there was a delay of three years from the time the offences were alleged to have been committed and the commencement of Court proceedings. My reply is that there was nothing in the returns which indicated to any officer of the Department that there was any necessity for investigating otherwise, responsible officers of the Department, including inspectors, whose duty it is to scrutinise returns and who had passed them without question, would have suggested investigation. There certainly was no neglect or dereliction of duty attributable to the commissioner in this respect. If it is suggested that all returns of income made in New Zealand should be investigated and compared with books every year, this would require some hundreds of income tax inspectors, seeing that there would be some 70,000 to 80,000 returns to be investigated, or that the commissioner should personally scrutinise all these returns to decide how many or what returns should be investigated. The absurdity of this is obvious.

"A short recital of the facts in the Bowron Bros, case may elucidate matters," continues Mr. Heyes. " A small disagreement with respect to an asessment of duty was in progress and a member of the firm strongly objected to a valuation which 1 had personally made, in which the firm was concerned. The sum involved was under £10 in all, and as I refused to reduce it, notice of appeal was given against my decision. When matters reached this stage, I, according to usual practice, at once directed au inspector to go through the books of Bowron Bros. The result of this was that the position which is now in public knowledge arose. Two points are made clear from this. First, that I myself as.Commissioner of Taxes first moved in the matter of investigation which was the result of the Hon. G. J. Smith's giving notice of appeal against 'my valuation. The other is that Bowron Bros, were 60 satisfied as to their position that they courted the fullest inquiry and all this about a paltry sum, which they considered was an over assessment. It is absurd to think that they ever would have allowed matters to reach such a pass if they were aware that they had committed the «i----leged crime with which they have been charged. It only proves their bona fides, and I am held up as guilty of dereliction of duty. Yet I personally directed the officer to inspect their books in order to obtain the necessary data to meet the appeal in Court, and the insinuation is made that I was in collusion with the firm to enable them to evade their income tax."