TAX-PURPOSE RECORDS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19339, 1 June 1937, Page 5

TAX-PURPOSE RECORDS

FARMERS' DIFFICULTY DETAILS NOT AVAILABLE SOLUTION SUGGESTED (Special to tlie Herald.) AUCKLAND, this day. Complaints made by farmers in the Franklin electorate concerning difficulties encountered in fulfilling the requirements of employment tax inspectors were the subject of reference yesterday by Mr. A. C. A. Sexton. M.P. for Franklin. He said that while the inspectors were more or less reasonable, and lie did not think they would bother about trivial items, farmers were being asked for details they were unable to supply. Little difficulty was experienced by farmers in working out their receipts as the main sources, cheques for produce, were easily verified, Mr. Sexton said. There were, however, many items of expenditure of which few fawners..kept .a..complete, recar.d, .and if .particular .sunis could not be verified the farmer lost the right to'deduct them from the total when the tax was computed. Details of Expenditure “The main trouble is that, whereas the farmer’s gross income can he readily reached, details of expenditure present a far harder proposition unless he keeps proper records,” Mr. Setxon said. “The fact that a farmer has not kept books is going against him now. The average farmer has neither the time nor the ability to keep proper books.”

A simple solution of the problem was suggested by the senior income tax inspector in Auckland when the matter was referred to him. He said that if each farmer kept only a complete cash book the major difficulties would be removed, and it was no more unreasonable to ask a farmer to keep records than it was to ask a small storekeeper to do so.

No complaints of unfair treatment had been received at his office, the senior inspector continued. The rule was for inspectors to treat reasonably all expenditure of a mixed nature that involved both farm and household transactions and many items only recorded by the taxpayer as cash disbursements were scrupulously allocated by the investigating officers in the way they judged to be fair to both the taxpayer and the department.