2000/153
3 pages
ROYAL COURT
(Samedi
Division)
28th
July, 2000.
Before: M. C. St J. Birt,
Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and
Jurats Myles, and Bullen.
The Attorney General
-v-
Lee Victor Warden.
3 counts of failing
to deliver to the Comptroller of Income Tax the statement in writing mentioned
in Article 16 of the Income Tax (Jersey) Law 1961.
Count
1: year of assessment: 1996.
Count
2: year of assessment: 1997.
Count
3: year of assessment : 1998.
Age: 31.
Plea: Facts admitted
Details of Offence:
the defendant
failed to file his income tax returns in respect of the years 1996, 1997, and
1998. In respect of 1996 he
received 8 written reminders, in respect of 1997 he received 7 written
reminders and in respect of 1998 he received 6 written reminders. His last complete tax return was in
respect of 1995 and in the absence of completed income tax returns for 1997 and
1998 estimated assessments were made.
On 14th May, 1999, judgment was obtained in the Royal Court
against the defendant in the sum of £3508.90 in respect of 1996 and 1997
liabilities, in respect of which £120 per week was being deducted from
his wages. At the date of sentence
his outstanding income tax liability was in the sum of £6,177.18 in
respect of 1997 and 1998b liability.
Details of Mitigation:
Poor financial
position. Was paying £60 per
week maintenance for his child which would have to be reduced if a substantial
fine was imposed.
Previous Convictions: 2 offences, non related, in
1991 in respect of which the defendant was fined.
Conclusions: Count 1: £500 fine, 1
month’s imprisonment in default of payment
Count
2: £500 fine, 1
month’s imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.
Count
3: £500 fine, 1
month’s imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.
£250
costs
Sentence & Observations of Court:
Count
1: £150 fine, 1 month’s
imprisonment in default of payment
Count
2:
£150 fine, I
month’s imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.
Count
3: £150 fine, 1 month’s
imprisonment in default of payment, consecutive.
£250
costs; 4 month’s to pay.
The court noted
that the Crown had invited it to send out a message that, in the light of the
recent increase in respect of the maximum fine from £500 to £2,000,
the tariff for similar cases should be £1,000 on each count. However, the court did not feel it appropriate
to issue such a statement given that each case will depend on its particular
facts. The court regarded the
conclusions as appropriate but reduced the fines sought in the light of the
defendants dire financial position.
A.
R. Binnington, Esq., Crown Advocate
Advocate
C. M. B. Thacker, for the Accused.
JUDGMENT
THE
DEPUTY BAILIFF:
1.
The
defendant failed to file income tax returns for the years 1996, 1997, and
1998. This was despite receiving
written reminders: 8 of them in
respect of 1996, 7 of them in respect of 1997, and 6 in respect of 1998.
2.
As the
Court has said previously, income tax supports the essential services of the
community, such as the provision of health and education, and it is the duty of
individual citizens to file their tax returns so that income tax can be
collected.
3.
The cases
cited to us show that there has been a tariff of in the region of £250
for each count of failing to file a return, although on many occasions the
Court has reduced this where there has been particular financial hardship or
other particular mitigation.
4.
As the
Crown has pointed out the maximum penalty for offences was increased recently
from £500 to £2,000, and the Crown has asked us to indicate that in
future the general tariff should be in the region of £1,000.
5.
We decline
to do that. Each case has to be
looked at individually. Furthermore
the penalty has been increased in accordance with the requirements of the
standard scales, and we are not satisfied that an increase in the maximum
penalty has to be met with a
proportionate increase in the standard level of fine. However, we do think that in the
absence of knowledge of the defendant’s financial position, the
conclusions in this case were right, namely fines of £500 on each count. Nonetheless, we have heard of the defendant’s
financial position and he has done the correct thing with the help of his
lawyers in filing an affidavit of means which has set out his financial
position on oath. It is clear
that he is in a dire financial position, and it is also clear that this is one
of those cases where, despite not filing a return, he has in fact been paying
tax throughout. There are
cases of this nature where there is also a failure to pay any tax at the same
time as the failure to make returns.
6.
Given
these matters we propose to make a reduction in the conclusions, as we think
that to impose fines at the level sought by the Crown in the light of the
defendant’s financial position would simply lead to a vicious circle with
his never being able to find his way out of debt. Stand up please. The sentence of the Court is that
on each of the three counts you will be fined £150 together with
£250 costs, you will have four months to pay, and you will be sentenced
to 1 month’s imprisonment in default, concurrent on each count, should you
default in paying within the four months.
Authorities
A.G -v- Campbell ( 21st February, 1997) Jersey
Unreported.
A.G -v- Granger (30th May, 1997) Jersey Unreported.
A.G -v- Drummond ( 13th March,
1998) Jersey Unreported.
A.G. -v- Bunton (25th April,
1997) Jersey Unreported.
A.G -v- Zenonos (20th March,
1998) Jersey Unreported.
A.G -v- Troalic (23rd February,
2000) Jersey Unreported.
Troalic -v- A.G.
(12th June, 2000) Jersey Unreported. CofA.
A.G -v- European
Employment Agency & Gas Consult, Limited (20TH November, 1992)
Jersey Unreported.