§ MR. KIMBER (Wandsworth)I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer 44 whether he is aware that the Board of Inland Revenue in March last demanded from a large number of companies payment of extra stamp duty upon debentures and other securities in respect of the premiums at which the companies had reserved the option of redeeming such debentures; and, under threat of penalties being inflicted, a large number of companies paid such demand, and at great expense and commercial inconvenience got in such debentures and had them extra stamped; will he explain why, seeing that in December last the Court of Appeal decided that the demand of the Inland Revenue Department was illegal, the Department has refused to refund the extra duty unless the companies will again call in the debentures and produce them to have the stamps obliterated, which the companies have no power to compel the holders to do, and in many cases cannot do, and much further expense and commercial inconvenience would be occasioned thereby to thousands of investors and holders; whether he has considered or will be advised by the Law Officers upon the question of the legal liability of the Crown to repay the money without imposing the condition in question; and whether he can see any way of affording relief to those aggrieved.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe first paragraph no doubt refers to a circular which the Board issued in March, 1899, although it hardly describes the Board's proceedings accurately. In December, 1899, the decision of the High Court, to which the circular relates, was reversed by a judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Board have decided to acquiesce in this latter judgment, and they have agreed to repay duty that was paid under protest, or with any implied understanding that the question of amount of duty might be reconsidered after the appeal had been decided. In considering claims for repayment, the Board have felt compelled to waive exact compliance with the provisions of the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891, for allowances on stamp duties paid in error, in respect of certain minor details. But they have not felt at liberty to carry their concession to the length of repaying duty on instruments not produced for cancellation of stamps. It must be borne in mind that from the middle of December, 1898, when the decision in the Divisional Court was 45 delivered, until December, 1899, when the decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal, the Board had no option but to act on the interpretatian of the law which had been declared by the High Court.
§ MR. KIMBERDoes the right hon. Gentleman see any way of giving relief to parties aggrieved?
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHI do not see any way of dealing with the matter.