TAX EVADED

Evening Post, Volume CXXVIII, Issue 24, 28 July 1939, Page 4

TAX EVADED

fmii SERVANT FINED

WIFE'S EARNINGS NOT

DISCLOSED

Admitting wilfully making a false taxation return in respect of the income derived by his wife, Archibald Maurice Flynn, a civil servant, who appeared before-Mr. W. F. Stilwell, S.M., in the -Magistrates Court today, was fined £s,:an.d costs.

;Mr:/C. H. Rogers, of the Grown Land Office,"' appeared on behalf of the Commissioner ■of Taxes, and Mr. A. J. Mazengarb appeared for Flynn. Miv Rogers said the defendant was a clerk.' In the year to which the charge related he furnished a return showing his income to be £335. He claimed exemption in respect ■of his wife, and in the form was this question: "Has your wife's income in her own right amounted to or exceeded £50?" He answered "No." The fact was that his wife earned that year by way of salary and allowances, £286.

•In the years 1936 and 1937, continued Mr. Rogers, the defendant also claimed exemption for his wife, whereas she ■was earning money. The deficjent tax was £4 7s 3d in 1936, £4 9s 8d in 1937. and £4 11s 8d in 1938. The total amount of which he avoided payment was £13 8s 7d. It had since been paid.

It appeared, said Mr. Rogers, that Mrs.-Flynn, in her occupation, used the name of Miss James. She was not j known to the Tax Department as Mr 6. Flynn, so that the two were not connected. In 1938 the return furnished by Mrs. Flynn was made out in the defendant's writing, so that it was perfectly clear that he knew what his wife's income was. If there were any suggestion that his action was due to inadvertence, it should be borne in mind that he was a' civil servant and a clerk and should have been familiar with the requirements. FOR THE DEFENCE. I It was not denied that Flynn and j his wife .were living together in a normal manner, said Mr. Mazengarb, and that in 1938 he actually furnished j her, return to 'the Department. She had not been working all her married i life,-but for the last three years she had been in employment. j The section under which the defendant was charged, said Mr Mazengarb, j referred to making a false return ■ either negligently or wilfully, and from j the remarks of the prosecutor it would i appear that it was a case of wilful' endeavour to avoid taxation. How-ever,-he would submit that there were aspects of the case which would take away the suggestion of wilfulness

It was quits a common thing for a ■wife's income to be taken as something apart from wages, more especially when it was coupled with the words "in her own' right " He suggested that this was a fair explanation as to the action of Flynn in merely ailing in "no."' THe^ amount had been paid although it was not necessarily accepted by, the Income Tax Commissioner It was possible that the defendant would be subject to triple tax for the years concerned. > In answer to the Magistrals, Mr Rogers said that there were very few offences of the sort, but the Department desired thai taxpayers should be made aware of the provisions, and be under no misapprehension as to their meaning.