INCOME TAX EVASION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18275, 16 December 1922, Page 8

INCOME TAX EVASION.

ALPINIST AND TRADER.

"NO EEDEEMING FEATUKE."

TWO FINES OF £100 IMPOSED.

[by. telegraph.—press association J

WELLINGTON. Friday.

A case of unusual proportions was called before Mr. F. K. Hunt, 5.M.,. at the Magistrate's Court to-day, the defendant, Samuel Turner, Laving to answer two charges of negligently making a false return to the Income Tax Commissioner Mr. P. S. K. Macassey prosecuted, and the defendant, who pleaded guilty, was represented by Mr. E. L. Macalister. The defendant, eaid Mr. Macassey, was a well-known mountaineer, and he had for many years past been employed by the arm of "Messrs. Lonsdale and Company at a salary of about £1200 a year. He had dealings with the Australian Salt Companv, bv which he considerably supplemented his income, and it was also suggested that bv private speculations in salt still more money accumulated. . With regard to the information laid in connection with his income return m March, 1921, the defendant returned his income as being about £1370, whereas it was assessed by the department &tbW6(. In 1920, the amount set down by lurner was £1370, but the department maintained his income for that particular year was £8659. It was thought that the differences between the assessments of Turner and those %i the department represented the amounts made by the defendant in bis dealings in salt, and to which he had not made reference. Apart from the above, the defendant had also invested freely in property, eta, and had made substantial loans, • Mr. Macalister explained that besides his own private income, the defendant was interested in that of the company trading as Messrs. Samuel Turner, Ltd. As far as the defendant's personal account was concerned, everything was in order, with the exception of the omission of' the suspense account which, on the advice of an accountant, had been opened some time ago, when Turner was experiencing difficulty in obtaining necessary shipments of salt. The account was necessary to back contracts. If the defendant had" suffered any heavy losses he would have had the suspense account to fall back on. This account was at the root of all the trouble, and it was very unfortunate that the defendant had not mentioned itsexistence to the Income Tax Commissioner. Under these circumstances, counsel asked that a nominal fine be inflicted. Mr. Macassey pointed out that Turner hacLdrawn large sums of money from the suspense account for his own private use. The Magistrate: I can't see a redeeming feature in the whole case. This man lias omitted to account for some thousands of pounds. He may be unfortunate, but he is well off, and can afford'to pay for his'knowledge. He is fined £100 on, each of the two charges.

AGOOmfTANT PINED £150. MISLEADING TAX OFFICER. [iJX TELEGRAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] CHKISTCHURCH. Friday. C. W. Hervey, secretary and accountant, and a member of the City Council, pleaded guilty to two charges of making false returns of income tax in respect to his income for the year ended March, 1920,' and also misleading or attempting to mislead the Commissioner of Taxes in respect to his income for that year. Mr. Donnelly, Crown Solicitor, said Hervey omitted to make returns showing £51 income Trom rents and £701 from sales of property. A second charge related to trading done in petrol and other matters' by the Canterbury Automobile Association, of which Hervey was secretary. When an officer of the department called Hervey satisfied him that the income on this account was only about £150, but later investigation showed that the taxable income was £1550. The association was taxed for £150, but the account, although kept in the association's name, was really Hervey's. The department had not definitely decided to inflict treble tax, but it practically followed £is -a matter of course, and the maximum penalty was asked for in respect to the charge of misleading _an officer. On the other charge a nominal penalty was suggested. . Mr. Gresson, who appeared for Hervey, said the amounts were not concealed from the inspector. The magistrate said Hervey's position J as a public accountant made his offence j more serious, but the mere publication of the charges meant a -Heavy penalty, as it might affect Hervey's position as a member of the Accountants' Society. He inflicted fines of £100 and £50, with costs and expenses. The charges in respeot to i 1921 were withdrawn.