FINED £100 THREE TIMES

NZ Truth, Issue 968, 18 October 1924, Page 7

FINED £100 THREE TIMES

— ♦ x • Income Tax Dodger Still Liable Under Penal Clause. Not long ago income tax prosecutions resulted m the heavy fining of a big Hamilton drapery firm. Now another well-known ladies' outfitter of Hamilton, William Frank Wellings, has been convicted. He was charged before Mr. H. A. Young, S.M., on three counts of failiAg to furnish income returns. Mr. Tanner, who appeared for the Crown, described the case as a bad one, m which the maximum penalty could well be imposed. On one occasion when defendant failed to send m his returns the department made a default assessment of £1000. Wellings objected to this and gave his income as £700, which sum was «:.c---cepted. However, the inspector made inquiries and x discovered that the actual income for that year was £4000. ■ ' .- ■ * On behalf, of defendant, who pleaded not guilty, Mr. Strang- said that Wellings began business m 1919 with very little capital, and,- if the amounts which the inspector now found were due for income tax had- been drawn out, the business could not have been carried on. All the profits 'had been put back into the business and were now represented by stock and book debts. His Worship took a serious view of the case and fined defendant £100 on each of the three charges, together with solicitor's fee £3 3s and Court costs. Mr. Strang asked for three months m which to pay, as, if his client was to meet his obligations he would have to hold a sale. His Worship said defendant was liable for treble the amount of the deficit, but the imposing of this penalty rested with the department. Wellings. could communicate with the department with regard to a postponement of payment of the fine. [The department has discretion m the matter of. imposing a penalty, apart from such fines as the Court may impose. The maximum penalty the department may impose is treble the amount of shortage m accused's income tax.]