FALSE INCOME RETURNS

Taranaki Daily News, 24 August 1931, Page 5

FALSE INCOME RETURNS

LICENSEE FINED £3OO

NEGLIGENCE PLEA FAILS.

OVER £5OO SHORT PAID. . . . Fines totalling £3OO, with costs, £1 Ils, were imposed upon Matthew Henry Richards, of Timaru, licensee .of the Saltwater Hotel, by Mr.' C. R. OrrWalker, S.M., in the Police Court at Timaru on Thursday for making false returns of income. The information was laid by the Commissioner of Taxes. There were seven charges, namely, that in 1927, 1928 and 1930 accused wilfully made false returns of the income derived from his business, that in 1929 he failed to make a return at all, and that in 1927, 1928 and 1930 he negligently made false returns. The commissioner was represented by Mr. W. D. Campbell and Mr. F. J. Rolleston appeared for Richards. i _ When the case was called it was stated that counsel had conferred and that defendant had decided to plead guilty.'Mr. Campbell then asked leave to withdraw the three last charges. Mr. Rolleston contended that Richards actions pointed more to negligence than wilfulness. He said accused kept a cash book, in which was shown all he received from the business, what'was paid into the bank and all the cash used for ordinary expenses from the till. PROPER INFORMATION NOT GIVEN. Accused sent this book to an expert in Dunedin to make up returns. By way of mitigation, counsel suggested that although the expert was not to blame, he should have made further inquiry, rather than rely on the book supplied by accused. The chief discrepancies were concerned with the amount of stock deducted for the purposes of arriving at income. Accused did not give the expert proper information to make up the purchases, with the result that these were inflated and the income lessened. Accused could not deny culpability. He certainly had signed the returns and sent them in. He was indebted to the Timaru Brewery Company and when he started business at Timaru he operated on a bank overdraft of £3600, which he had since been paying off. When he found he was still owing money to the bank he concluded that this should come off his income, and this blinded him to the fact that his income was still fairly substantial. Improvements to the extent of £2OOO had been effected to the property and accused misguidedly regarded these as payments from the business and us. part of the necessary incidence of business. Mr. Rolleston suggested that when, all the facts were assembled the case was not a bad one and that the Court might see its way clear to deal leniently with Richards. Mr. Campbell said accused was an old customer of the department’s and since 1920 he had been in business as a hotelkeeper. The department was not prepared to look upon Richards as a childish individual who did not know what to do with his income tax returns and was not prepared to thrust the onus on the expert in Dunedin. For the year ended March 31, 1927, accused returned his income at £9l, when the correct returns should have shown it at £lB3O. In 1928 his return showed his income at £lOl, when actually it was £1420. In 1929 there was no return.

In 1930 accused’s return of income was £524, when actually it was £1990. He paid £8 Ts sd, the amount required being £175 5s lOd. Over the four years his income was shown at' £lll6, whereas the actual figure was £7332. He had paid -in tax £ll 5s 9d, instead of £565 8s 7d.

MAGISTRATE MAKES AN EXAMPLE.

The magistrate said . the case was peculiar in that accused could be punished twice—by the department and by the Court. He had to consider the case from the point of view of the public and endeavour to deter others from committing a similar offence. When false returns were furnished, offenders must expect to pay heavy fines if they were caught, the maximum being £lOO. . In this case he intended to wake an example. In four years accused had attempted to defraud the Government _of £550 and had it not'been for the action of the inspector in examining the books accused would have succeeded. , The magistrate imposed a penalty of £75 on each of the four charges. ’ After the decision had been given- a woman appeared from the rear of the courtroom and was about to open the door to leave, wiien she stated: y think we had better give you the home and start all over again?” The magistrate: What is that? By this time the woman had disappeared.