TAX DEPARTMENT ALLEGATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 919, 12 September 1910, Page 6

TAX DEPARTMENT ALLEGATIONS.

/: ;Mr;;Heyes in; eeply- ;;;;>:; \; ;. ; ;^-. : '.;';;;^o';;th>. ; ;EdiW.) ; ' v-fc^y-V; ' 'Sir,-r-In' 'your.-issue-of .the 10th in-., stant there are reported-"several charges' '■' and innuendoes preferred against me • by. . •Sir; ;T. E. Taylor, when speaking in . the: House of •Bebresentatives,:: .which, l ) ;■ are without.yany foundation : ..m\fact';tb,;! support them,; arid;, they -were endorsed j" by .Messrs.' Fisher" andyHerdman;;';This\' is no'.'doubt -in accorda'nce'sSwitti .. : .the'v. ;: poUtical methods which.these 'gentlemen..', are\so : frequeht]y:identined sirj youV have a; v which'Vsnp- ; ports them.;; .Foiv.this;relsbnl. think'.; that' British: justice; gives v.me'the.right.'' to; be" Heard:-..-,; I. 'am no. longer 'a .Civil, ; unjust;, attacks'are': ■very damaging; to;me in; earning my; liv-; \ : ing, .and ,1 cannot, afford, for political'■?' and rother.J reasons, , ; to J remain - silent v under.'them,- : as'.l; had. ..tq:'.;fl6 .when - these {matters were;'being .inquired; into'- ; by .'the; two <xjmmissioik-.S; •'";;' , vlnvthe findings of. both-these commis- ; - sions I was.;: exonerated: from : all - dis^;' ■-.' honest motives.'or. actions,:, and ..- such ; has:. : been-:made public:on more-than' one .occasion^;; ; My ; reply no w'? j»; my ;f----accusefs is' an absolute ..denial of :tho:; : -truth ■ of■'.-■;.' all- these" ■ dastardly;; attacks : upon .me} made: under/ythe: shelter- of ':\* the privileges which Parliament.affords ; to : members,.but.; not. toyte;yabused..yl;c also' ; . absolutely ydeny;-.tFat ■ .they.,'were ■'■'■■ proved;, as; alleged-;by;Mr.-Taylor. ...If;; such' 1 "st'atenients.;-;be >• madeyoutside ':.' : 'of;,; Parliament Icanyprbmise my traducers. ■:: something which 7 will -make • them more : v careful ■in ;m'aking ;; ; such .;> slanderous r. statements:-.',-;; I ;'' ?•'.-■ ■.'•''"•■..?.'

■ u In the case.: of: BowronL Brothers, Mr. Herdman inquires why' there.'.' was. ■ l a• ■: delay; of .three; years;frpm ; the time : the. YY; offences to have.-been com-'"._',' mitted,--;and :tb.ef..,initiationof Court '■'.■ proceedings.-. : The I'replyj is: that .there V.>"'. >"' ; was.nbthing'iin 'the 1 : returns which ;indi-/Y. cated- to-ahy"6fficer.of the Department.;',/.: that .'there was, any ' necessity for. ■_ in-:.-. -■' vestigatibh,..■''otherwise'the responsible ... bffioersvbf • the Department,; including' the ..inspectors'.whose; ''duty , it is to..:;: scrutinise .the returns; and who. : had;..;;-. passed v..\: -them ."without Y would '.;nave Y;suggested. ..an'-::investi-YiY'Y gation.i ,;v There' .■ certainly. ...was ;-..nq ,;V... ne ectV. or '■'- - ■ dereliction ":. of.: ':.duty y ; attributable to the Commissionerin this;:':: 'respect^'.;'■B. : 'it: , '.turns of,'.income;made' in' New Zealand |/,': should:be."investigated;and' compared ;;:. with the' hooks -every :year;_this: would >';;-;: requires sonie: hundreds ■-. of:,income-' seeing that.;there : wouldYbe■;';;'. • some ,70;000'to v 80,000' returns- to; be!inr;..'' I .'-: vestiga'tedY or that-,the.YCommissioner. K. Y '•'.;. 'should .turns .'■ to\ r decid« rhow; many :br;.- what'.. re-vY; ,Y' turns ;>. surdity of:iMs':is'obyiousi.:;;;;;;' - : '■>,.' Y'Ashort recital 1 of ;the ; facts in Bro-ffier.sV;;casevmay; elucidate the' mat- :'Y ter.■: A small'disagreement with respect 'yy to; an 'assessment: of: duty. -,was: inpro- ~-, 'gross, /Y and ;a; member. of: the.:'firm■"/.: strongly "objected to!a : valuation', which; .: Y 'I had personally made in which'the firm',,':' was .concerned. YThe, sum ; ip.vblv<ed;.was .;..-■■ under £10 in all,, and' as I'-refused to,• ■•' j '.■ reduce it notice of ; appeal was- given :-,-;■ against:. my V. decision. Y :; When - : matters.', reached this stage, I, according, to-usual \- •',' practice,-: atYionce .directed an inspector •: "to'. go: through' the .books,-' of •';Bowrdn : ■ ■'.- Brother's, and the result of this was ; position'which, is. now.: in public, .knowledge arose/ Two points are made.clear' v, ■front-- thisV-'.-.First,;Ythat: iYmyself ;ai ;::';: iCommissioner'-of TasesYYfirst moved in : , :the. matter;of the.' investigation, which,.■':;-: :was -the. result.'of the>Hon: G.: J. Smith's;; : :giving notice of appeal againstmy. valu-;,,: Y ation; the ; other is: that Bowron: Bros.-•". - : ',. were ; So ..satisfied as ■'■.to • their •' position ;. >' •- that' they. courted' the fullest inquiry—- : ; and. all thisVbbut a : paltry' sum which. V;: they* considered was an over-assessment;','. ;, - .It is .absurd; W-think Ythat-theyYever YYY would have .allowed : matters' ■ to.:.reach; .'.'■'. such a: pass if Ythey: were aware■ : that •■' they had .committ«d.:the':alleged: crime Y.. which .they have'been charged with., I .'lt :.:' only proves; their bona ,fides, and I'■ am .Y' held- up as guilty.'of .'aY.dereh'ction' of r . ' duty..' Yet' Iypersonally: directed' the.;.:. officer': to inspect their books -in order ,tb .obtain the.,necessary data to;.meet;' ■ \ the 'appeal in. Cbnrt, ( arid; the insinua-Y.' tiori I was.in'collusion with Y: the: firm; to. enable them to. evade' their ; '-. income tax.—l am, etc., :;::'':- : : ' '''Y Y::P.:-HEYES.:'-: , ,'■: Wellington, September. 11,: 1910; Y-Y.