Honorary, Amateur Tax Gatherers

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 12, Issue 79, 9 August 1948, Page 5

Honorary, Amateur Tax Gatherers

J«BE Employers Used By State To Collect Overdue Taxes

Complaint is made that with hundreds of taxpayers falling into arrears with income tax payments under the high scale of taxation now in operation, the Government is making use of section 7 of the Finance Act, 1942, to collect arrears, says the Wellington “Dominion”. , The section requires employers -when notified by the Commissioner <f Taxes to deduct each week from the defaulter’s wage or salary a sum mot to exceed one-twentieth of the income tax due or. not more than one-fifth of the weekly wage or salary, whichever is the less, until the total amount of the arrears is satis- : fied. Employers found little difficulty in carrying out the Commissioner’s - requirements in the war years, when the Manpower Regulations controlled the movement of employees from job to job. Today, with the freedom of movement restored, it is stated that as : soon as the Commissioner notifies intention to collect arrears in this manner many workers, mainly in the unskilled labour grouos, will move to another job, or will refuse to work a full week. At least one employer has raised the question of liability for this loss .-and has demanded indemnity from rihe commissioner before proceeding

the collection. The claim is made that when in carrying out imposed duties, an agent incurs loss or injury the principal is liable for his compensation, and the Commissioner of Taxes may therefore be liable for any loss employers may incur by employees leaving to avoid tax deductions from wages. Complaint is also made that the employer is placed in a doubtful legal, position. The Truck Act provides that wages are inalienable. It is capable of legal argument that deduction of social security tax as well as income tax arrears may be against the constitutional rights of the employees. If an employer asks the employee why the income tax has not been paid and the employee states that the money he gets is required for the proper- care and support of his family, the employer is placed in an invidious position, it is ' stated. Which comes first, the responsibility of the head of the family to support his wife and children, or should he give priority to the claims of the tax-gatherer? A few months ago Mr A. A. MacLachlan, S.M., refused to give judgment in a civil claim for payment of tax arrears against a man who proved that his earnings were required to support his family. The magistrate said the claims of the family ranked before those of the State.