DODGING INCOME TAX.

NZ Truth, Issue 253, 30 April 1910, Page 6

DODGING INCOME TAX.

BOWRON BROTHERS' CASE.

Magistrate BisboOs.Scat hing Judgment.

On Monday Magistrate Bishop gave i his deterred judgment m the case Wil- 1 liam Alo'ciis Tyers (representing the Income Tax Department) v. William Bow- j ron, George Bowron, and -George John ] Smith, trading as Bowron Bros., as follows : — "The informant m this case is William Morris Tyers, an inspector under the Land and Income Tax Assessment Act, lOOii, ;and the defendants are William Bowron, George Bowron, and George John Smith, trading m co-partnership as merchants under the firm of Bowron Bros. Th 3 information charges the defendants with 'committing a breach of section iU6 of the L,and and Income Tax Assessment Act, 1908, m that they did, within the space o£ three years, to wit, on the sth day of November, 1906, at Christchurch, by a certain act, to wit, by knowingly and wilfully making a false return m writing m relation to the income" of the said copartnership firm of Bowron Bros, affecting that firm's liability to . taxation, evade full taxation m respect of income tax. • ■ "The evidence of the prosecution consists mainly of the sworn testimony of the informant, supported m all essential particulars by the production of balance sheets, statements, and other documents pertaining the case. Ko evidence whatever has .. been tendered on behalf of tlie defendants and the case for the prosecution stands wholly uneontradicted. The only point, therefore, that I have to decide is, whether, m my opinion, that case as it stands is sufficiently complete and conclusive to call -for a conviction. There can be no doubt whatever about this. The evidence proves beyond any question, and leaves no margin for doubt, that the defendants have made an absolutely false return, and have done so knowingly and wilfully with the object of evading payment of their . just . share of taxation. When I consider the business standing of the firm, the position, * commercial and otherwise, of the defenr dants, the enormous amount of their turnover, "and the apparent wealth of i the parties, the conduct throughout of | the defendants seems to be so utterly inexcusable , and the breach of the law so exceedingly serious, as to call for the infliction of a most substantial penalty. The penalty must be the utmost the law allows. The defendants are convicted and fined £100, and are ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. I also, as required by the section already referred t», inflict an additional line "of treble the amount of the tax, the payment of which has been evaded by the defendants. Section 107 of the Act sets out the manner m which this additional fine shall be ascertained. This is a matter to be dealt with ,by the Commissioner of Taxes.": Stringer, K.C., who prosecuted for the Crown, mentioned the important subject of costs. If the ordinary Magistrate's Court costs were allowed, the three guineas would not pay for the type-writing. The hearing had occupied three days and a half, but m addition considerable time had been occupied m preparing evidence. His Worship i said that substantial costs would be allowed, and postponed naming the sum till the morrow, when the data would be at Ms disposal. | Solicitor T. G. Russell, recently returned from the elderly country, appeared for the defendants. Sitting m chambers, subsequently to the delivery of his decision, Magistrate Bishop fixed the costs m the case against Bowron Bros, at £50. . The hearing of two other charges against the firm were adjourned sine tlie.