§ MR. SEARS (Cheltenham)To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Board of Inland Revenue, in making the statement that in the case of the estate valued at £132,300 in 1898, and floated with a capital of £450,000 in 1900, the Board had no title to reopen the matter on the strength of developments which took place two years after the death, took into their consideration that such developments disclosed the fact that the estate had been underassessed at the time of death, and also their own statements to this House that the power of the Board to recover under assessed death duty is not limited as to time, and that, had the purchase been effected sooner, the valuation would have been corrected; can he explain the apparent contradiction between the 53 statements made by the Board and say why no action was taken to recover in this case in which a false return had been made, seeing that according to their own statement the Board possessed the power.
(Answered by Mr. Asquith.) It is even now impossible for anyone to say that if the property had been sold in 1898, instead of in 1900, it could have fetched more than the sum at which it was valued, the property being of a kind liable to violent fluctuations. The Board adhere to their statement that in this particular case they were precluded from reopening the settlement of 1898, by reason of the circumstances which attended the making of it.
§ MR. SEARSTo ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the case of the estate valued at £132,300 in 1898 and floated with a capital of £450,000 in 1900, whether he is aware that the prospectus of the company disclosed the fact that a false return had been made at the time of death and that the Estate Duty had been under-assessed to the amount of at least £20,000; has his attention also been drawn to the report of the chartered accountant quoted in the prospectus, from which it appears that the profits made were, in round figures, 1895 £27,000, 1896 £31,000, 1897 £33,000, 1899 £28,000, and 1900 £29,000; will he state whether Income Tax was paid OH the sums named; if not, whether action was taken in this case similar to Case 4, page 33, in the Appendix to the Report of the Departmental Committee on Income Tax, 1904–5; and, if not, why not.
(Answered by Mr. Asquith.) All the facts were fully disclosed at the time of the death, and there is no ground whatever for the. suggestion that a false Return was made. The prospectus issued in 1900 is not before the Board of Inland Revenue, but in any case they are not at liberty to discuss Returns of Income Tax under Schedule D with persons not directly concerned with the Returns.