Income Tax Returns.

Waikato Argus, Volume XXVIII, Issue 4340, 3 March 1910, Page 2

Income Tax Returns.

By Telegraph.—Press Association Christchurch, Last Night.

Ihe hearing of the charge against Bowron Bros, was continued this morning. Mr Stringer resumed the examination of W. M. Tyera, Income Tax Department’s Inspector, who put in a copy of the partnership deed between Bowron Bros, and Smith, containing provisions for keeping proper accounts, balance-sheets, and stock sheets, and also put in a statement of liabilities and assets prepared by the three partners. Tyers mentioned a conversaion with Modlin, of Mr Smith’s concerning a debt due by Bowron Bros., London. Mr Skerrett put in the balancesheet of the London firm. Mr Tyers examined this, and said it appeared to show a deficiency of £103,000. Cross-examined by Mr Skcrret, witness said he bad made no adjustment of the firm’s assessment until recently. He could not swear that Smith had not told him the auditor was preparing reports of the firm’s position. Mr Skerrett asked if Tyers was not very desirous of getting a conviction. Witness: No, 1 think I get nothing but hard r.nocks out of it. I hope if 1 am wrong the case will not succeed. Mr Skerrett: I understand you have made this matter the subject of a charge against your superior officer. Witness: Yea, among others. Mr Skerrett; How many others? I’m not particular to a thousand or so. Witness: I do not know, your Worship, whether it is right to bring this in. The Magistrate: I’m not going to express an opinion. It is time for me to act if you object. Wintess; My superior officer is not here, or represented, and I decline to answer.

Mr Tyers continued that he had never been guilty of incivility to Mr Smith and never told him he was lying. He had no reason to believe the entries in Bowron’s books were not honest. He fixed the amount on which income tax was not paid at about £IO,OOO. He considered the alleged loss of £IOB,OOO could not be deducted, and was not convinced that it was really a loss; it might be an investment in England. “He was led to think that by the fact that the account had been allowed to accumulate to such a enormous extent.

Mr Tyers, who was further examined by Mr Skerrett as to discrepancies in the balance sheets and the figures he had supplied to the Court, said he had checked no other period from the books than the year ending September 1905, though he had taken figures from the books relating to 1905, 1906 and 1907. The witness suggested that Bowrons should pay to the Commissioner £IO,OOO exclusive of liability on the bad debts. Percy Howard Goodsir, accountant and land agent, said he was in the employ of Bowron Bros, from May 1904 till July 1907. During that time Mr Modlin was auditor for the company, and he audited the books regularly. Witness never took out any balance sheets olf the firm’s books, which were kept in such a way that balance sheets could not be taken out. Considering the material he had an auditor would require information which witness did not have. Witness had no information as to capital, etc. He did not know whether Bowron Bros, had a private ledger. He took an abstract of expenses from the ledgers for the purpose of the income tax and gave it to Smith. Stock was taken regularly, but he could not tell from memory if stock was taken for the year ending September 30th, 1906. He could not say whether statements or balance sheets were prepared for the Bank, with which Bowron Bros., did business.