INCOME TAX CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 99, 4 August 1910, Page 8

INCOME TAX CASE.

THEj <IJASB FOR THE. i3»P^jjLAITB. j|^TERD4V i slnßo(JS^^<J By Telegraphv~p> fl as in^tioM The" "Bowron case was continuedMhia morning. p George Bowron said he JriievecMiJs syltem of making $ incomflax relrna was correct.; During Ms visit to k. tend in 1904 he came Jo that Bowron Bros., London, werefirafinancml and that their debt to Clffst. •Church was a bad one. | Mr. Stringer said the prospectus *ti» mated the profits of the London hlise tor nine months in 1904 at £lfi,ooolg Mr. Bowron suggested that these fronts were what would have.Wen mad* if there had been no interest and other .charges. In malting the 1905 return""he deducted £37,000 as a bad debt of the London house. He understood the firm's books were not full accounts of their attairs. ■ ■., r Tpvyards the conclusion of the croaiS examination, the fitness requested Mr. Tyers not to stare at him so persistently., , ~_r lr ; . ._ t ,Jr G. J. Smith said he had never keit toQks. oe, had been employed by BofJrons arfa-Werk before joining the fin i. No balance-sheeti had been prepan i ,W ; se joined the firm. He had litt b to' do With the film's B<sbl3, bit spei t most of his time in the House at Wi . ulington. The sa I the books were npt properly'kept. 11 s fid,nofeknow until recently how badl f they were kept . Ha inever-prepared i return without Gek Bowron's assistanc i. -With regard to Tyers' JmxmL. he hi 1 been so upset M the cWrglbf frai|l I that he assumed tfce figures were correct, J and had been prebared to pay whethi r , there was an error or noTrather tht l le experienced durii t the past few mon lis. aHejMverjiesiri l - to deceive Mr. ha? goi a > ifittTiiS- w" mOl e 7 on P ref erred »toc ;, '*»*;' M™ l * present id to financiers t! a ■ Mraffc tax returns to show the firm's i r | come. ! v.-, T HE FIDES. ; impressed, ■ **"•?*,'"»/ V'~« "*** * Chrj»^hnrah>W,Night ""' When -the case conelAwW flp eV ■■ pelmnte, Mr. «tringw «a?d Ty«i««»e«M« v | like to criticise the statements put in by ' the'accountants; "r * ".-- :~r&~ « , Sir Robert Stout said that the" evi-' ; dence did not affect the 1905 return. ! Mr. ttussell said he WOTld'sribmit' , filfct though the return made by appellants was Incorrect there, was no* criminal *itent, and nJftintenUom to *B<le ts£> I ff At A PJT -J ilturn Mad been4lMeuy Thl I|&M Statute had not been put in, and fie reason,;,according to Bowron, was Ito i cjpver) fctihe forgiveness of the d&t lower by the brothers in London. Tlfct | was .4onwingty™doue, Jw-^WBciaLjoSe-thing from the Commissioner of Tans. ; /The ieyideiWe 'of(jSMith!«ltef*he strofeest that had been brought forward fir 'Mel defence, and seemed to prove £e bona fides of the firm in regard to fax returns generally*ifcuti thW.alteratk)nsia the 1905 return remained. jfc "•"MrStosseil suteHted--th«t«H»iigh tte mistake had been made appellants odffld not W l61 * 1 °* deliberate fraud? Sifr«obert j»out said he could only say Ine evMence of Smith impresifed '.,, I him deeply as to the bona fides of pa 1 Mr. Russell said in that case he flfea inclined to leave' the 1 case as WMboiHT^ Mr. Stringer said he would have Men pleased if he had been able to modify the charge in some .way. ;but aialjOeturn had been made. Smith had" estaV lished his good faith:in- regard 4e-the return. Judgment would toe giv4n A"&2 p.m. to-morrow. }:, il