ALLEGED FALSE RETURNS

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 330, 4 March 1910, Page 5

ALLEGED FALSE RETURNS

THE HEARING CONCLUDED. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Christcliurch, Thursday. The heaving 01 the charges against George and William liowron and (ieorge John Smith was resinned today Mv Skerrett, Jv.C., for defendants, wanted the charge defined. Mr. Bishop, S. M., said lie had jio power to compel Mr. Stringer, \\ to alter the charge. ill*. Stringer said that Mr. Skerrett could put iu particulars supplied out of court, but lie would not be bound by them if the evidence snowed anything else. Mr. Skerrett herepon put in a statement that the alleged false return was a return for the year ended 31st March, 1900, ill which the net income had been returned at £18,830, whereas the income; according to the audited balancesheet, was £52,418, or after certain corrections £52,755. Mr. Skerrett said he did not propose to call evidence, and proceeded to address the Bench. He said that the charge, being one of fraud, had to be proved completely. It was admitted that defendants' accounts had been honestly kept, though not ssientifically and artificially correct. Tyers had admitted that the entries were lionest. There had been no concealment of books or documents. It was also conceded that there were mistakes of an important kind in the returns made by defendants. The controversy as to the short payment of duty would depend on whether allowance should be made in respect of the debt of £IOB,OOO, which had been admittedly incurred, and of which there was no evidence of recovery. Mr. Stringer: I do not admit that. We say it does not affect the question. Mr. Skerrett continued. The informant had to prove the returns of lUOfi were knowingly faise in material particulars. Mr. Skerrett insisted on the importance of intention in this connection. The prosecution had to prove that by the false return the amount of duty had been shown to be less than the anumnt properly payable. He submitted that there was no evidence in proof of this. He also raised the point that the return dealt with the income for the year ending 31st March, and that to justify the substitution of any other date special application must be made to the Commissioner. He further argued that no evidence had been offered that the firm had made a greater profit than £IB,OOO in the period affected by the return. The business was one in which great fluctuations occurred, and it could not ue argued that because certain profit was made between 30th September and 30th September the same profit would be made in the vear ended .list March. He submitted, turtlier, that the bad debt of £IOB.OOO had been proved. It was for the Crown to show that this amount was taxable. Mr. Stringer rejoined that the Commissioner of Taxes could not adjudicate on bad debts unless claimed. Smith had said the returns were made up to 30th September, and in many instances they agreed with the balance-sheets made up to that date. Ic Was agreed l>y counsel that the other informations' should be held over until decision has been given in the first. The Magistrate reserved his decision.