FALSE TAX RETURNS

Hokitika Guardian, 2 March 1933, Page 7

FALSE TAX RETURNS

BUS PROPRIETOR GUILTY.

7 INCOME UNDER-STATED.

AUCKLAND, February 28. Two charges of ’negligently ~ making false income-tax' returns,’ two 'of .wilfully making false returns/ and one of failing to make a return, were preferred against William Iddeson,. proprietor of the Auckland Bus Compny, in the Police Court yesterday before Mr F. K. Hunt, S .M, The prosecutions were Drought by the Commissioner of Taxes, who was represented by Mr Meredith, Crown Solicitor. Mr Mackay represented defendant, who- admitted negligent<y making false returns, and also failing to furnish a return, but denied the alleged wilful , failures. Mr Meredith said the prosecutions were brought under the Land and Income Tax Act, 1923, It was alleged accused failed to furnish a return for

the year ended March 31, 1930, and that in each of the ttvo succeeding years he both negligently and wilfully made false returns. Mr Meredith said that in 1930 defendant, who was running a bus business, made no returns, although his profits were about £3OOO. In December, 1929. he had two banking apcounts, one in hi s name and the other ini the name of the Auckland Bus Company. On March 31, 1931, the company was incorporated, and iaccused put in two returns, one for himself and one for the company. He showed his own income to be £loo'7, but it had been assessed at £3581. He showed tile company’s return for that year as £Bl3. It was contended that he had deliberately incorporated the company to evade a certain amount of tax, and for the year he should} have paid an additional £598. In the year ended March 31, 1932, hi s return showed an income of £657, but it had been assessed at £1291. The tax paid was thus £75 short for the year. Mr H. J. Copping, income tax inspector ;at Auckland, gave evidence in support of Mr Meredith’s contentions. He said the total deficiency in tax over the three years was over £IO9O.

Mr Mackay said defendant, who had had n 0 business training, had failed to make a return in 1930. Later his returns had been negligent, but he had not wilfully misrepresented the position. Accused was fined £lO on the wilful failure charge in 1931, the second allegation of wilfulness being dismissed On each of the other charges he was fined £2 and ocsts