CORRESPONDENTS' VIEWS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXIII, Issue 178, 30 July 1942, Page 4

CORRESPONDENTS' VIEWS

INCOME TAX PAYMENTS

<To The Editor)

Let us attempt to by-pass the dust storm raised by Mr. Haddow in his last letter and let us make an effort to fight this matter out in the open. Perhaps an illustration may prove to be helpful. We will assume that on September 1, 1941, Mr. Labour Overtaxed Citizen received from the Commissioner of Taxes a notice to the effect that his income tax for the vear ending March 31, 1941, had been assessed at £100. This taxpayer would have a proper opportunity for testing the validity of his bill. But Mr Haddow must surely have overlooked the provisions of Section 36 of the Land and Income Tax Act, 1923 under which the money is to be found and paid notwithstanding the lodging of an objection. In February, 1942, Mr. L.O.C. would receive from the commissioner the usual demand for payment of £100. Suppose that at this later date he failed to pay what was due. He would then become a defaulter within the meaning of this latest example of bureaucratic despotism. His default might be attributable, as Mr. Haddow suggests, to the fact that he was a "disloyal shirker"; but, on the other hand, his failure to pay might very well be due to a number of other causes—loss of his job, a sustained and costly illness, or an accident leading to reduction in his earning power. Under this new legislation the commissioner would send out to the defaulter's employer a notice commanding the employer to make deductions up to 4/ per £1 from the employee's waj»es and to pay such Reductions to the commissioner until the employee's debt is wiped out. Within the limit mentioned the commissioner himself fixes the amount of the deductions, and, in addition, the employee will be paying 2/6 in the £1 for national and social security tax and will be trying to set aside a sum to meet next year's income tax. In similar circumstances to those here outlined, an ordinary creditor would have to go before a magistrate or a judge. The Court would then hear what the debtor had to say on his own behalf and would itself decide how much the debtor could and should pay. Labour legislation, however, permits the Commissioner -of-Taxes of his own volition to side-step the Courts altogether and to make such orders as happen to suit him. It is just in circumstances like these that a taxpayer would need the protection of the Courts and it is just in these very circumstances that the Courts are closed to him. R. M. ALGIE.