REBATE ON PETROL TAX

Taranaki Daily News, 16 October 1930, Page 9

REBATE ON PETROL TAX

PROSECUTION OF A FARMER, i HONEST MISTAKE ASSERTED. A case of | very great interest to farmers, and only the second of its kind to be heard in New Zealand, came before the Magistrate’s Court at Christchurch last week. It concerned the securing of the rebate on petrol used for running tractors and other farm machinery, and in dismissing the case Mr. E. D. Mosley, S.M., had some remarks to make in regard to the administration of this section of the Act. ' David Henry Butcher, a farmer,! of Broadfields, was charged that on July 31 at Lincoln he made a claim, under section 8 of tho Motor Spirits Tax Act, 1927, which was false 1 in a material particular. Mr. W. J- Sim appealed for Butcher, who pleaded not guilty. Senior-Sergeant J. J. o‘Grady conducted the case for the- police. In outlining the case for the prosecution, Senior-Sergeant O’Grady said that accused was a farmer who in the course of his work used a tractor, and under the Act under which this charge was preferred was entitled to a rebate of fom'pence a gallon onfall petrol used in that tractor. He had made application for a rebate of 76 gallons at the end of the second quarter in 1930, stating the claim on one of the forms provided for that purpose. At the post office he was intormed . that he could not secure the rebate on the full quantity, as 40 gallons of that amount was used in the first quarter of 1930, and according to the regulations if a claim was not made for the same within one month after the end of the first quarter no rebate was payable on it. When told of this, Butcher had made. the excuse that he had purchased a 40-gallon drum which was not used entirely in the first (quarter. He amended his claim to apply to 36 gallons. Mr. Sim; addressing the magistrate, said that the prosecution was one which alleged dishonest practice on the part of Butcher. Such, he maintained, was not the case at all. He produced a form which was similar to that used in makincr application for the rebate. “A farmer has to state what make of machine he is using, what the horsepower of that machine is, how many men he eihploys for the kind of work for whidh'the machine is used, and innumerable? other things, too,” he continued. “Other farmers in the same district as accused and in neighbouring districts do not make application for rebates for J 'ic very reason that the form is so complicated and they are frightened of it. There is no suggestion that this man was not originally entitled to a rebate on the 40 gallons referred to, and when it was pointed out to him that he could not get that rebate, owing to the lateness of the application he amended it and forsook the claim for the 40 gallons. In point of fact Butcher did not use the whole of that quantity in the first quarter of the year, and upon being informed that he could not apply for a rebate until the whole of the drum was used he held the application in abeyance. He is a perfectly honest farmer, and it was a perfectly lionest mistake, and yet we have all this machinery turning over it.. I ask that the case be dismissed as trivial. “The offence is a highly penal one,” said Mr. Mosley in dismissing the case. “Under this section accused is liable to a fine of £5O, or three months’ imprisonment. I have come to the conclusion that Butcher and his father are decent, honest farmers, who had no intention to defraud. As a matter of fact they have not defrauded the department, and it is not a case for a penalty. The only reason for the case, is to make farmers particular when making such claims as these. “Farmers have to rely on the intelligence of the post office officials and these should be able to make it clear to farmers what is required in making these or similar applications so as to avoid laying themselves open to prosecution. Th > case is dhnissed.