HUNTLY BAKER CHARGED.

Waikato Times, Volume 103, Issue 17412, 26 May 1928, Page 8

HUNTLY BAKER CHARGED.

INCOME-TAX RETURNS. ALLEGED TO Bt FALSIFIED. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) AUCKLAND, Friday. In the Police Court a baker named Alexander Shand, in business Huntly, appeared to answer five charges of having wilfully made false returns of his income for the yea-s 1923 to 1927. He pleaded not guilty. Total Deficiency of £307. Figures put forward by Mr Hubble, for the Income Tax Department, showed discrepancies in the return made by Shand, and that assessed, after investigation, by an inspector of the Department. Following were the returns made by Shand, with the assessed income in parentheses: —1023, £361 (£1250); 1924, £387 (£1250); 1925, £4BB (£1067); 1926, £694 (£1350); 1927, £406 (£1400). Tax paid by Shand in 1923 was £1 3s 2d; in 1924, 10s 3d; in 1925. £1 18s 9d; in 1926, £l2 4s; and in 1927, 10s lid. The tax payable, according to the inspector's return, was £7O 3s (>d, £SB 12s Id, £44 0s 7d, £65 18s 3d, and £B7 19s 3d. The total deficiency in tax was £BO7 19s 7d. Shand's Statement.

Giving evideuce, Shand said in 1022 his wife had £IOOO from her mother's estate and other capital. If ho wanted financial assistance his wife gave it. Besides this she was " the business one " and ran the business. " I understand now that the books I kept were all wrong, but they were in such a way that I knew what they meant." (Laughter.) Cross-examined by Mr Hubble, Shand admitted that some of the money paid into the Post Office Savings Bank account came out of the business. He .... w money was lent on mortgage and that other sums were on fixed deposit. " Did it not dawn on you that you were gradually accumulating wealth — that you were getting rich?" asked counsel.

Shand answered that he had not thought of it. Mr Terry (for accused): He thought he had to return the income after the business had been run. Whether the explanation is-good, bad or indifferent it is his statement, and you must accept it.

" I am asking Your Worship to believe that Shand put in his return, no doubt haphazardly, as he though correctly," said Mr Terry, in addressing the Court. " lie is a thrifty, industrious baker, but his knowledge of accountancy is elementary and poor. No' conscious was made by him to defraud the department. " The business was run as a partnership between Shand and his wife. All her moneys intermingled with his. Even although on the figures the returns as rendered are incorrect, I ask you to believe that he did not do-it wilfully. And the charges we have to answer are that incorrect returns were wilfully made." Heavy Fine Imposed.

Holding Shand guilty, and imposing fines of £25 on each count (a total of £125), Mr F. K. Hunt, S.M., said: "1 am satisiied defendant knew perfectly well what he was doing. He was banking plenty of money and returning false particulars to hoodwink the department. If that is not wilful, I do not know what is. This should make people like this return honest statements."