HC Deb 14 March 1895 vol 31 cc1062-3
MR. F. TAYLOR (Suffolk, N.)

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue, in cases where owners are occupying their own trade premises, are requiring the amount of reduction allowed from the assessment of Income Tax under Schedule A, by virtue of Section 35 of the Finance Act 1894, to be added to the assessment made upon such persons under Schedule D, thus, as to a section of the taxpayers who are taxed upon their earnings, denying them all benefit of the relief supposed to be granted by the Act, and which relief is in fact allowed to the other owners of property; and, if so, whether it is done upon the instructions of Her Majesty's Government; and whether such was the intention of the Government in framing the Act?


If the hon. Member will give me the particulars of any case in which he thinks a grievance exists, I shall be happy to examine them. Speaking generally, the course pursued by the Inland Revenue appears to be just. Traders are entitled to an allowance of any sum expended for repairs of trade premises under Schedule D. Since the Act of last year they are charged, not on the full value of their premises, but only on five-sixths of that value under Schedule A. If, after having paid on only five-sixths under Schedule A, an owner-occupier were to deduct, not five-sixths, but the whole annual value from his assessment under Schedule D, he would in fact get the allowance for repairs twice over, and would be paying income-tax on something less than his net profits.


asked whether these requirements could be legally enforced.


Not only legally, but with right.

MR. S. C. T. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

asked whether this reduction was not made specially to meet cases of repairs; and how, in that event, it could be charged with income-tax at all?


The great, difference is that under Schedule A formerly there, was not any allowance for repairs. By the regulation of the last Session an allowance of one-sixth was made. Previously the owners of those premises, under Schedule D, had an allowance for repairs; and it could not be argued that they should receive an allowance under both schedules.

Forward to