INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 14699, 6 December 1909, Page 2 (Supplement)

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT.

—. «> SON-RESIDENT THADKRS' AGENTS. At. the Magistrate's Court on the 11th ult. the Commissioner ot Taxes sought on Arehalf of tho Crown to recover from Ceorgo Lyon Denniston, merchant, carrying on business at Bond street, Duncdiu, £34 9s 9d for income tux unpaid. Defendant is agent, in New Zealand [or certain non-resi-dent traders, and was assessed in that Capacity Mr J. F. M. Fraser appeared for the Crown, and Mr \V. Downie Stewart appeared for defendant, who denied personal liability, on the grounds—(l) that no money hail come to him in his representative character as agent for any of (lie said non-resident trailers out of which lie cou'd pay the said income tax; (2) that, while, such incomo tax remained unpaid lie had not alienated, charged, or disposed of any real or personal property held by him in his representative character; and (5| that no income tax was payabio by law for any of tho transactions in respect of which tho assessments had been made.

His Worship (Mr 11. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) delivered his reserved judgment on Nov. 23 as follows:—"At the hearing of tho feudaut gave evidence in support of tho matters set forth in his statement of defence. It is clear that the agent is an ' agent' within tho meaning of the Act. ami also 'a. taxpayer' as therein defined. I have carefully considered sections 9 and 10, relied upon by tho defence, and 1 must say that I concur in Dr Arthur's concise judgment in the Commissioner ol Taxes v* Black, of the 18th Juno, 1907 (2 D.C. and M.C. Reports, 80), with regard to an agent's liability. Bui Mr Stewart, contends further that there is not and n-ever has been any income held or controlled by the defendant; that is to say, that there has not been any income within tho meaning of scoticn 79, as the, non-resi-dont traders for whom tho defendant 'a agent do not. come within the provisions of tho Act as to carrying on business in Now Zealand, their business being with this country but not within it. 1 do not think that defence can avail the defendant in the present ease. Part 111 of the Act contains provisions for tin making of returns, assessment, ana objections, and uiklt section 22 objections may be made to any assessment of and such objection must lx? hoard by a magistrate, and his decision is final and accepted on points of law. The point raised in this cass should, in my opinion, have been taken as an objection to the assessments that were being made, ami, being a point of law. the defendant, would have had tho right of appeal thereon to the Supreme Court in case of an adverse decision by the magistrate. No objection appears to have l>ecn taken to the assessment, and under section 20 (5) if must bo held that the assessments have br-on duly made, and that the amount? and all particulars of such assessment arc correct. The cases cited by defendant's counsel do not. it seems to me, help tho defence, as they are all either directly or by special ease (by agreement) appeals from the assessment, but rather support the view 1 have taken. In my opinon, therefore, the defendant is liable, and judgment must be for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with costs (£4 2s).

Mr Steward gave notice of bis intention to appeal. His Worship fixed security for appeal at £50.