§ MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, considering the rates of taxes now being enforced, and the depression existing in some important businesses, he can see his way to suspend the recent order of the Board of Inland Revenue under which collectors of taxes arc directed to close their accounts at earlier dates than last year, and to lay these rules before the House of Commons in order that an opinion may be expressed with regard to them before they are finally put into operation.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe dates for the closing of collectors" accounts have this year been fixed on a new basis, viz., by reference to the number of taxpayers in the district instead of by reference to the total amount of tax to be collected in the district. This arrangement is much fairer to the collectors, and, although it will result in an earlier closing of accounts in many districts, it by no means follows that it will necessarily create a difficulty in the way of allowing reasonable delay to taxpayers who can plead good cause for indulgence as regards date of payment. The machinery of the Board of Inland Revenue allows of such cases being dealt with without interfering with the prescribed date for closing the collector's account. The object that the hon. Member has in view can therefore be adequately insured without suspending the recent orders, which would seriously disturb and confuse the business of the Department.
§ MR. LOUGHCannot the right hon. Gentleman lay the rules before the House in such an important matter as this so that it may consider the question?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINNo, Sir; they are already in operation and cannot be suspended. But I will give the hon. Member a copy of the rules.
§ SIR GEORGE BARTLEY (Islington, N)Are the threatening notices of 599 process against those who do not pay much sooner to be put in force than has been the case before?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat Question hardly arises out of the one on the Paper. It is a little difficult to answer it properly in reply to a supplementary Question. The notices which have been issued are in exactly the same terms as those that have been used for many years past. For many years past the date at which the second notice had to be issued was 23rd January, or three weeks after the taxpayer had received his first notice. I have not altered the date, and if there has been any change it is in consequence of the first notice having been sent by post, thus causing it to be received earlier by more taxpayers. This accounts probably for more taxpayers having received the notice this year than in former years.
§ MR. LOUGHI beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the authority for the statement made by the Board of Inland Revenue in a letter to the Chairman of the East Finsbury Conservative Association that Income-Tax is by law payable by all taxpayers alike on or before the 1st of January; whether, in view of the admission in a subsequent clause in the same letter that in one district of East Finsbury the accounts hitherto were not required to be closed till the 31st of May, and in another till the 30th of June, he will say whether any such law has been, in fact, enforced in this country up to the present time; and whether it is the intention of the Government to enforce such a collection.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe authority for the statement in question is Section 82 of the Taxes Management Act, 1880. It has never been the practice to employ compulsion in order to enforce literal compliance with the law in this respect, although, in fact, a certain, number of taxpayers have always complied with it voluntarily. Pressure has always begun to be exercised in the fourth week of January on those who have not paid by that time, and this practice must be continued if the tax is to be collected within the financial year. There must, 600 however, always be a certain number of cases in which, from one cause or another appeals, removals, errors, omissions, etc.), liability may remain unsatisfied by the end of the financial year. It is merely a matter of administrative discretion to determine how long an account between the collector and the Board of Inland Revenue should be kept open for the sake of bringing in all such loose ends.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI do not desire not to give an Answer to what appears to be a very simple Question; but it is very dangerous to answer suddenly Questions of this kind across the floor of the House. I have said exactly what has been done. Complaints about the collection of Income-Tax are chronic, but some pressure must be employed if there is to be any equality in the treatment of different taxpayers, or if the revenue is to be collected at the right time. Cases deserving exceptional treatment will receive the same consideration as in other years.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)Has the collection of Income-Tax in other years been inadequate under the previous system?
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINYes, Sir.