“A GRAVE CASE.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17524, 29 April 1925, Page 1

“A GRAVE CASE.”

BUILDER FINED £250. INCOME TAX CASE. Robert 11. Benjamin, of Christchurch, builder, was fined £250 in tbe Magistrate’s Court this morning on five charges of making false income tax returns, and of failing to make returns, as required under the Act. Benjamin was proceeded against by the Commissioner of Taxes on charges of having wilfully or Jnegliigently madc false returns in relation to his income for the year ended March 31, 1920, and March 31, 1921, and with having failed to furnish a return in the prescribed form setting forth a complete statement of all the assessible income derived by him during the years ended March 31, 1922, 23, 24. Benjamin, through his solicitors, pleaded guilty to all five charges Mr Donnelly, who appeared for the Department, said that it was admitted that false returns of income had been made for the years 1920 and 1921. The other charges were lor making no returns for .1.922, 1923, and 1924. He regretted to say that there was nothing that could be said .iu extenuation of the charges which were considered very grave by the Department. In 1920 llie tax paid was £22 7s fid. whereas it ought to have been £2Ol 2s 3d. in 1921 tlie Lax actually paid was £l3 19s fivl laud sliouljd have been £1259 11s Lid. As far as the charges of not making returns was concerned they also were regarded as a great deal graver than the cases that usually came before the Court. The posircturns were made the Department was defrauded of a considerable amount of tax and for the three following years Benjamin lmd evidently not made returns in. the hope that lie would escape paying the tax that he should. Air J. M. Gresson, for the defendant, said that the reason for the large discrepancy for the two- years cited by Mr Donne ly was that defendant had not included in his returns the profits he made in connection with speculations. That of course was a wrong thing to do, and he tv as liable as the result, but that was his explanation, it was impossible to ascertain with any degree of accuracy the income of defendant for any given year. It was c.etlr that there had been a certain amount of muddle- as well as other factor’s responsible. .Benjamin had had no decent system of 'bookkeeping, and that was largely the cause of the trouble. “From the facts put before me, v said the Magistrate (Air AY. Meldrum), “there seems to have been a certain amount of muddling in matters of book-keeping, but it was always open Benjamin to engage an accountant. He will ho doubt be called upon to pay a penal tax; that is his own fault. L will inflict a fine of £SO in each* case, making a. total amount of £250. There will be £2 2s solicitors’ costs in each case.”