INCOME TAX RETURNS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LX, Issue 18457, 21 July 1923, Page 12

INCOME TAX RETURNS.

FAILURE TO. FURNISH.

TWO DENTISTS CHARGED.

FINES : AMOUNT TO £800.

A case in'- which two Whangareil dentiste, Harold Kean Clarke and Cyril! Samuel Clarke; trading J as Kean-Clarko Brothers, dental surgeons, were charged with having failed to' furnish income tax returns, came before Mr, J. W. Poynton, S.M., ,in the Police Court yesterday. There were four informations against each defendant, covering a period of four years. Mr. Patterson appeared for the Commissioner of -Taxes and, Mr. Stout, for the defendants. Counsel for the prosecution said that defendants had been in business since 1919. One was conversant with income tax law, as before the war he had j:ent in returns. The other defendant had never Bent in returns. In May last defendants were visited by an inspector who. examined the books, which showed that a lucrative business had been carried on since 1916. In 1919 the profits made by the two defendants were £1037 and £1389; in 1920, £1542 and £1522; in 1921, £1800 and £1782; in 1922, £1392 and £1362. If all the tax had been paid a sum of about £2600 should have been received by the State. The effect of not supplying the returns defrauded the Government of revenue when finances were in rather a serious state. The department regarded the case as a bad one and asked for * heavy penalty. " Counsel for the defendants s*,id the men had no knowledge of accounts till last year, as the whole books had been kept by one of the dental aurses. They could not send in an accurate return. No assessment had yet been made by the department, and he maintained his clients had not, received anything like "What the prosecution alleged. The books were in a state of muddle. There was no deliberate falsification, although there was neglect. Defendants did not know what they were making, and they had paid all other taxes. The magistrate said it was a case for the maximum penalty. Even that would not compensate, and there was no reason for reducing the penalty. Each defendant was fined £100 en each information. The total amount of the fine was thus £800, with coats.

Counsel for the defendants asked for time to pay. He suggested three months. Mr. Poynton said he. would give one month for payment.