INCOME-TAX CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 December 1922, Page 5

INCOME-TAX CASE.

FAILURE TO MAKE RETURNS. STRATFORD SOLICITOR FINED. Truby King, solicitor, was before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., at the Stratford Court yesterday, charged on five counts with failing to furnish income tax returns for each of the years from 1918 to 1922 inclusive. 'Mr. C. H. Weston appeared for the Commissioner of Taxes, while Mr. Quilliam appeared for defendant and pleaded guilty on all counts. Mr. Weston said that in 1920 a default assessment was made for King. In 1921 no return was sent in and no assessment -was made. Nor was any return furnished for 192'2, and the term for making the return had now expired. An officer of the department had gone through defendant’s books during the present year and the amount of tax assessed was paid, defendant making no objection to the assessment. Mr. Quilliam said that provided the department s figures were correct the facts were as stated. The charges were oi failing to make returps; not of making false returns. It must be admitted, frankly, that defendant was in the wrong and had failed in a duty cast upon him by the law. Defendant did his clients’ work and neglected his own. King had thought that if the department made an assessment and the tax was paid, the taxpayer need not trouble further. In England, Mr. Quilliam thought, that was the practice. As time went on King realised that he was not paying enough tax and he decided to see the Commissioner and put the position before him. Defendant was willing to pay what was demanded of him. Mr. Quilliam asked the Bench to consider, while imposing a penalty, that appearing in Court on such a charge was humiliating and in itself a severe punishment. The offence was one of omission and not of commission. The Magistrate said the case was an extremely awkward one. It must be presumed that defendant knew returns had to be made. The question of penalty in such matters was difficult. In one case of making a false return a magistrate had inflicted the maximum penalty, but this was a case of failing to make returns. On each of the first four charges, concerning the past four years, defendant was fined £5, and on the charge in respect to the present year a fine of £25 was inflicted. The costs amounted to £3 12s. . .