HC Deb 12 May 1898 vol 57 cc1075-6
MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the undertaking given by him on 3rd July, 1896, that he would be prepared to pay the reasonable costs of both sides if a case arose in which the general principle could be submitted to the Court for deciding the question whether settled property in which the deceased life interest has been transferred to the reversioner more than 12 months prior to death, is or is not chargeable with duty under the Finance Act, 1894, and to the fact that the case of the Attorney General v. Beech has been so submitted to the Divisional Court and to the Court of Appeal, the reasonable costs of both sides in that case in both courts have been or will be paid by Her Majesty's Government; and, if not, why not; whether, during the existence of the doubt whether duty was lawfully chargeable in such cases, the duty has been in such cases exacted and levied in and since 1896; and, if so, what is the amount of duty so levied in 1896–7 and 1897–8; whether, in view of the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal that the duty is not chargeable in such cases, the Inland Revenue authorities will now abstain from exacting it, and will continue so to abstain until their appeal to the House of Lords has been decided; and whether the reasonable costs of both sides in that appeal will be paid by Her Majesty's Government?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.

The costs of the respondents in the Divisional Court have been paid by the Crown, in accordance with the undertaking to which the honourable Member refers. In the Appeal Court, costs were given against the Crown, and will be paid according to the order of the Court. Duty has been levied in, and since, 1896, in cases in which, according to the judgment of the Court of Appeal, duty is not chargeable. I do not know what may be the precise amount of the duty so paid, and, unless it has to be repaid, there seems no reason for stating it. In view of the fact that two conflicting decisions have now been given on the point at issue, I believe it would be in accordance with precedent that, pending the appeal to the House of Lords, the duty should be claimed in such cases and the parties liable informed that, if the contention of the Crown fails, any over payment will be refunded. It is not intended to pay the costs of the respondents in the appeal to the House of Lords.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer absolutely undertake to pay the reasonable costs of both sides? Did he make any restriction to the effect that the undertaking should apply only to the inferior court?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Yes, I did.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

No.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I did. We were quite content with the judgment of the Divisional Court.