"WORST ON RECORD"

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 15, 18 January 1924, Page 8

"WORST ON RECORD"

FAILURE TO MAKE RETURNS

STOREKEEPER'S ' PUNISHMENT.

(IT TILICJAPB.—'fBEU ASSOOUTIOH.) ''. _, 'BLENHEIM, This Day. "This is a particularly bad case of neglect to fulfil the obligations imposed. by the Land and. Income, Tax Act,", stated . the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. C. H. Mills, at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when two charges against Frederick; Hampton Flower* a Kaikoura, storekeep^ er. of failing to furnish ~ income tax returns for the, years ..ended 31st March,----1922, and 31st March, 1923, were being heard. Mr. Mills said that apparently the defendant had not furnished any returns whatever in 1921 and 1922. An income tax inspector visited Flower at Kaikoura, and investigated his affairs, and as the result it was found that £563 18s was due in respect of tax for'the period 1912 to 1921, inclusive.: After- consider-, able trouble Flower paid -. about £200 off this amount, and :in .October, 1922/ the matter was placed iii "the hands of> the Crown Law Office for the recovery of the sum of £357 12s 7d, representing thearrears for the years I 1914 to 1920 inclusive. The Crown Law Office wrote s»varal letters to Flower, demandirig: payment, bat without result. Eventually a writ was issued, and judgment was obtained for the amount, but Flower still-! remained deaf to all communications from* the Crown Law Office until :a: writ of sale was issued.. Finally,, on. 11th,"September, the amount was recovered. ' 6ri 19th September the Crown Law Office wrote to Flower by direction 'of the Commissioner of Taxes, advising him that unless he' furnished returns for the years 1922 and; 1923, informations would be laid and a substantial penalty pressed for.: This communication was treated in the same! manner as all other communications—. there was no reply; and the present' (proceedings were taken. ' \ Mr. T. E. Mannsell, S.M., after hear-; ing the evidence of Charles J. Dowland,: an inspector of the Income Tax Depart-' ment, said that the correspondence show-.; ed that the Department regarded this as' one of the worst cases of neglect on re-: ; cord. The defendant had put the De-.' partmeat to endless trouble' and expense; in past -years,; and he had had; ample! warning that he should furnish {returns,, but had ignored these warnings. He* would impose such a penalty; 3s would; impress on the defendant the necessity^ for furnishing returns promptly in fu-i ture. ■-._-. „..•.. , . ;.j The defendant was_ fined £20'"on eabK : count, with . costs totalling £10 10s. 2d, a total of £50 10s 2d. He still has to furnish the' returns required, and pay the taxes. . .