RETURNS OF INCOME.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20722, 15 November 1930, Page 14

RETURNS OF INCOME.

FAILURE TO FURNISH. BUSINESS MAN FINED £25. COMMENT BY CROWN COUNSEL. [BY TEIEGRAFfT. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] WELLINGTON, Friday. "I am sorry that defendant is not present or represented, as it will be necessary for me to state hard facts which suggest that his failure to furnish returns amounts to more than mere forgetfulness," said Mr. J. M. Tudhope, assistantCrown solicitor, in the Wellington Magistrate's Court to-day, when Henry Laidlaw Turnbuil was fined £25 for failing to furnish returns of income. There were two informations against Turnbuil, who resides in Auckland.

Mr. Tudhope said that although tho informations were merely for failing to furnish returns of income, there were features about the case which distinguished it from the usual case where the taxpayer merely forgot, year after year, to furnish returns until he received a default assessment. In 1927 defendant furnished no returns, but paid on a default assessment. In 1928 he failed to furnish a return within the prescribed time, and a default assessment was sent to him charging him with tax amounting to £4O. He saw that this was too much, and furnished a return in objection. The tax upon this return amounted to £ll 15s.

In 1929 defendant again failed to furnish a return, and a default assessment was made charging him with tax amounting to £25 Ho accepted this default assessment and paid £25, apparently deciding that it was less than ho would have to pay if he furnished a return. It was discovered that his salary alone for that year was £1270, and tho tax payable on that amount would be £74. His salary, however, was not his whole income, as he had interest on mortgages amounting to £l4l. Thus, the income tax payable in 1929 would be £9O, as against £25 which he paid on the default assessment.

Defendant again in 1930 failed to furnish a return. On receipt of the summonses for 1929 and 1930, he furnished a return for 1930 showing his income as £L?i4. Most of that, however, was in the form of dividends in tho company by which ho was employed, and a very small portion of it was taxable. "The point I wish to emphasise," said Mr. Tudhope, "is that in 1928, when he received a default assessment in excess of what he would have to pay on his true income, he immediately furnished a return. In 1929, when he received a default assessment showing tax very much below what he would havo to pay on his true income, he said nothing but paid on the ridiculously low default assessment."

Mr. Tudhope said defendant was business man enough to pay just prior to the last day and so avoid penalty for late payment, "fie is a shrewd business man, and I suggest he knew what he was doing," said Mr. Tudehope. Defendant was fined £2O on the first charge and £5 on the -second.