ORIGINAL " IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. LLIAM BAR' REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. Delivered at__ Sydney _ on_12 40358 A: H. Perriven, Active Govr. Privt. oy qi JUDGMENT THE KING AND THE COMMISSTIONSR OF TAXATION LR. JUSTICN REICH THE KING AND THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION ve. WILLIAM BARBER THOMPSON. Judgment. Rich J. This is a motion for judgment for the plaintiffs in terms of the relief specifically stated in the statement of claim. No defence was filed by the defendant within the time prescribed by the Rules of Court but the defendant applied for and obtained an extension of time for filing a defence until the 29th June on the understanding that the hearing of the matter was not to be delayed by reason of the extension. The defendant, however,has not filed any defence. In an ordinary proceeding by statement ¢ of claim where the defendant has made default in delivering a defence the fm facts stated in the statement of claim are taken to be admitted by the defendant,Order 26 r.7, Young v. Thomas,1892 2 Ch.at p.137. The proceed- ing in this case is a taxation prosecution wmder Part V1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1942,but I do not propose to take into consideration , the averments as set out in the statement of claim as they inctude matters relating to other income tax years. The admitted facts are that during the year ended 30th June 1942 the defendant carried on the profession of a medical practivioner at Sydney and that for the period from the lst July 1941 to the 30th June 1942 he made a return of his income for this period which he declared to be true and correct in every particuler and disclosed without any reservation or exception a true and complete statement of all income derived by him during that period. The gross income returned for F his profession was stated by the defendant to be £1,620. Thus he knowing~ ly and wilfully understated his gross income as it appears from the books } of account kept by him in his own handwriting and admitted by him to be accurate in all details that his income during this period from his pro- fession was £15,826. He thereby muxkakmst understated his gross income | as a medical practitioner for the period in question by the sum of £14,206 i and avoided payment by this understatement of the sum of £8,803. These facts bring the case within the provisions of section 230 of the Income Tax Act under which a penalty may be imposed of not less than twenty - fivi pounds or more than five hundred pounds and in addition the Court mey order the person to pay to the Commissioner a sum not exceeding double the amowmt of tax that would have been avoided if the statement 2. in the return had been accepted as*correct. Upon the defendant widertaking to file his petition in Bankroiptey for the sequestration of his estate within 2hhours of the receipt by his Solicitors herein of notices of assessment for income . ree tex to date in respect of the income tax years beginning 2etb only 1933. I make the deélaration in terms of the first prayer of the Statement of Claim and I order the defendant to pay as a penalty the sum of £500 and in addition I further order him to pay to the Commissioner the sum of "£4,000. Defendant. to pay the costs of these proceedings. i