The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-10-25
TAX COURT
FURNISHES
SENSATION
Robertson Makes
a Charge OF
Perjury.
RETURN OF All IN
IS QUESTIONED
Expert Examination of HIS Books
Disclosed Larger Income Than
He Had Returned.
SENSATION was sprung at last

q oENNoAI1OIN WAS sprung at laSC
"a nights session of the tax appeal
a n court when Attorney Robertson,
on behalf of the government, charged
I. All In with fraud and perjury in
making his return of income for the
year just passed.
Ah ms case was heard Wednesday
night, and the return made by him Of
an income of 1922 was received with
good deal of doubt, when the large
amount of business transacted was
taken into account. AT the conclusion
of his examination last night the court
ordered that his books be left open for
a thorough investigation by an expert,
and this was completed yesterday. Last
evening the expert reported that all
he could find was an income of 81, 112
for the year, the greater part of the
increase over the return made to the
assessor being upon stock in the Hop
Hing Company, which the appellant
had totally ignored in the examine
tion Wednesday night. The report of
the expert. showed also that All In had
been paying out the greater part of his
income in interest charges, at very
high rate
Mr.. Robertson, at the conclusion of
the report, stated to the court that The
examination of the books showed
clearly that fraud had been attempted,
and that the appellant was guilty of
perjury in swearing to the return made
TO the tax assessor. He said that the
court had no power to punish for the
crime of perjury, by sending the man
guilty of such a crime to prison, but
he argued that it was within their pow
or to punish him by adding the 200
per cent penalty, as provided by the
law
The section referred to is as follows:
FAILURE TO RETURN-FALSE RE-
TURN.
Section s. When any person or cor
poration having a taxable income re-
fuses or neglects to render any return
or list required by law or decline to
take oath or affirmation thereto, the
assessor may make such assessments
as he may consider just and the same
shall be binding and conclusive upon
all parties and shall not be subject to
ulent return or valuation by any tax
payer the assessor shall add 200 per
cent to the just valuation of the in
come of such taxpayer and the amount
of the tax assessed on such increase
shall become part of the tax on said
income.
Judge Davidson, who represented All
In, replied to the argument of Robert
son, stating that the circumstances
were such as to entitle his client to the
benefit of any doubt. He stated that
the return made by All In was true
as far as was known to the appellant,
and that the law did not requirG the
taxpayer to make oath to the return,
but he was given the right to affirm
tn the best of his belief and knowledge,
and this he contended had been done
by All In. He said further that moth
ing had been shown that would inn
peach his integrity or to hold him to be
guilty of perjury. The evidence show
ed that All In had just come back
from China, and was not acquainted
with the books said Mr.. Davidson. and
on that account he was entitled to
4N'A4NAASS' Il llCiS ilpl Deen SHOWN,
he concluded, that Mr. All In has been
guilty of fraud, and he should not be
punished for perjury on the state of
facts here shown"
Mr.. Robertson replied that the fact
that All In had just come back from
China was no excuse for the false re-
turn. as ne should have let his man
ager, who was thoroughly acquainted
with the entire business. make the re-
port. He had no business to swear to
a statement which he did not know
was true in every, detail
Mr. Davidson replied that the law re-
quired the taxpayer himself to make
the return, and All In had stated the
facts to the best of his ability.
Mr. Robertson said that many of the
tfeturns had been sworn to by clerks