HC Deb 19 February 1891 vol 350 cc1072-3
MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the appeal "The Surveyor of Taxes, v. Amelia Hobkirk," which is a case of appeal against the decision of the local Income Tax Commissioners to relieve the said Amelia Hobkirk, who is the owner of a tenemented house, from payment of Inhabited House Duty, under the Act of 1890; whether he is aware that the said house was originally built for two tenants, having a common door in the street, but separate tenants upstairs and down; that the house is now, and has always been, inhabited by two tenants, each paying less than 7s. 6d. per week; whether this is a case expressly provided for by Sub-section (2), Section 26, of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1890; and whether he will state why the Government have acted thus towards this house owner, the decision of the local Income Tax Commissioners, who know the facts, and the intentions of the above-named Act?

٭ MR. GOSCHEN

The Board of Inland Revenue consider that the decision of the local Income Tax Commissioners to relieve the owner of the tenemented house mentioned from House Duty is incorrect, as they do not think that the house is one Originally built or adapted by additions or alterations, and used for the sole purpose of providing separate dwellings, so as to bring it within the scope of Section 26 (2) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1890, there being internal communication throughout. A case has accordingly been demanded, under the statute, for the opinion of the High Court; and the hon. Member will see that it would not be proper for me to answer his inquiry as to whether this is a case expressly provided for by the Act, inasmuch as that is the precise point on which the opinion of the Court is desired.