§ (1) Where land or any interest in land is held by any body corporate or by any body unincorporate as denned by section 12 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, the occasions on which Increment Value Duty is due shall be the fifth day of April in the year nineteen hundred and fourteen and in every subsequent fifteenth year.
§ (2) The account to be delivered under section 15 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, shall, in the case of the account to be delivered in the year 1914 and in every subsequent 15th year, contain an account of the increment value of the land, as on the preceding 5th day of April (calculated, in cases where an interest in the land only is held, in accordance with the value of the interest), and that section shall apply for the purpose of Increment Value Duty, whether the body corporate or unincorporate are chargeable with duty under Part II. of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, or not.
§ (3) The provisions of sections 13 to 18, of sub-section (1) of section 19, and of section 20 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885 (with the exception of any provisions relating to appeals), shall have effect for the purpose of the assessment and recovery of Increment Value Duty as they have effect for the purpose of the duty charged under section 11 of that Act:
§ Provided that Increment Value Duty may, if the body corporate or unincorporate chargeable therewith so desire, be paid by 15 equal yearly instalments, and the first instalment shall be due immediately after the assessment of the duty. 39 Any part of any duty so payable by instalments may be paid up at any time.
§ (4) Any Increment Value Duty assessed by the Commissioners on an account delivered in accordance with this section shall, for the purpose of determining the amount of Increment Value Duty due on any occasion, be deemed to have been paid.
§ (5) Nothing in this section shall affect the collection of Increment Value Duty on the occasion of the grant of any lease or the transfer on sale of any land or interest in land by a body corporate or unincorporate.
§ Mr. JOYNSON HICKSmoved, in section (1), after the words "the occasions on which Increment Value Duty is due shall," to insert the words "except in the case of reversionary interests in respect of which Increment Duty shall not be payable until the same reversion falls into possession." This clause relates to duty payable every 15 years by bodies corporate or unincorporate, which include such bodies as insurance companies, who retain these reversions as a matter of business until the time comes for them to fall into possession. The clause is inserted to cover the duty that would be payable under Clause 5, if the owner were an individual rather than a body corporate. Increment Duty is there payable on the death of any holder, and in accordance with the provisions of the Finance Act, 1894. Under that Act, Estate Duty is payable on a reversion, bit by section 7 (6), where the estate of any deceased person includes an interest in expectancy, there is an option to pay the duty upon that reversion at once or when the reversion falls into possession. If an individual held the reversion to which this clause applies, he would clearly be entitled to postpone payment of the Increment Duty until the reversion fell into possession, and I submit that exactly the same reasoning applies to the case of a corporate body. It would be quite unfair to enact that when an individual holds a reversion he shall have the option of postponing payment of Increment Duty until the reversion falls into possession; but that a body corporate, who may be equally unable to raise the necessary funds until the reversion falls into possession, shall pay at stated times, although the reversion may not fall into possession for possibly 40 years. I submit that this is a reasonable Amendment, and one which, since it will not harm their scheme, the Government might well accept.
§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir William Robson)I think the hon. Member is mistaken in saying that in the case he puts to me an individual would not have to pay Increment Duty upon a reversion. Under section 27 an interest in land is held to include an interest expectant on the determination of a lease, but no other interest in expectancy; and by section 2 any interest in land is made the occasion for the collection of duty. So that an individual, if he transferred a reversion expectant on the determination of a lease, would thereby give rise to an occasion for the collection of Increment Duty. All that the section with which we are now concerned does is to apply exactly the same principle, neither more nor less, to a corporation, and if the Amendment were carried it would actually put corporations on a different basis from that occupied by an individual. Both corporations and individuals, if they part with a reversion expectant on the determination of a lease, give rise to an occasion for the collection of Increment Duty, and no other interest in the nature of an expectancy does. I think the hon. Member will agree that the Bill had better be kept on the same footing for both corporations and individuals.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIs it quite clear that in the case not merely of a transfer, but of death, an individual holding a reversionary interest in land is bound then and there to pay Increment Duty upon that reversion? Is he not entitled, under Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1894, to postpone payment until the reversion falls into possession?
§ Sir W. ROBSONHe has just the same powers and privileges in regard to Increment Value Duty as in regard to the payment of estate duties.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThen I think I am right. I am simply desirous of putting corporations on the same basis as individuals. It is clear that in the case of a transfer they are the same now; but if an individual holding a reversionary interest on the determination of a lease dies, his representatives have a right, under Section 5 of the Finance Act, 1894, equally as if it were Estate Duty, to postpone payment of Increment Duty until the reversion falls into possession.
§ Sir W. ROBSONUnder what section of the Finance Act?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSSection (6), sub-section (7), of the Finance Act, 1894 41 "…… or when the interest falls into possession." That is clear. The individual or his representatives have a right to postpone the payment of the Estate Duty until the interest falls into possession.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI do not think there is any right to postpone. The matter is very technical, and we had a discussion on a previous occasion with regard to this very matter. Section 8, sub-section 4, shows that you are not dealing with properties for which the executor is accountable, as he is for the reversionary interest. Subsection 6 of section 7 has no application to that particular clause. I am quite clear about it.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIf the right hon. Gentleman thinks he is right—though with the very greatest deference and humility I rather think I am right—I will withdraw the Amendment, on the understanding, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that if I turn out to be right he will put the Amendment in on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE (on behalf of Mr. Cave)moved to leave out the word "fourteen" ["In the year nineteen hundred and fourteen"] and to insert "twenty-four." I understand the whole principle of the Government's dealing with the corporations is that the duty should be payable every 15 years. Therefore, I cannot understand why they should not give them the benefit of the first 15 years' run. It is obvious that the Government are not able to fix on the corporations the same rule as that which applies to individuals, whereby they may become liable for duty at once. They have departed from that rule and substituted a certain period of time, a period which I suppose is intended to be half an average generation. I do not know exactly on what principle they have adopted that, but I submit that they ought to give the corporations the benefit of that 15 years from the first. I do not think anything has been said by the Government in the earlier Divisions to explain why they do not give them this benefit.
§ Mr. MASTERMANThis is not a controversial point, but the hon. Member asks for an explanation as to why the Government have made this particular time. The whole intention of this clause, as I said to the Committee when dealing with the first clause, is to put the corporations, as far as possible, in the same position as private 42 individuals The time originally chosen for dealing with the corporations in order to make a similar amount of time to that of a generation in the Finance Act was 30 years. Subsequent research has largely proved that that time is too long, and that probably the duration of the period between one Death Duty and another is something more like 24 years. Having accepted the period previously at 30 years, we accept now that a corporation should be assessed for Increment Duty once every 15 years, because as the hon. Member will see a corporation is put in a different position from the owner in dealing with the payment of Increment Duty. The owner pays Increment Duty at the time of his death, either in cash, or what is an equivalent, cash in instalments with interest; a corporation, though it is assessed at a certain period, pays during the 15 years that succeed in regular yearly payments. If my hon. Friend will work out the figures he will see that the corporation is really in a parallel position to the individual. The average Increment Duty to be paid by the individual is a 15 years' average, and the corporation is paying during 15 years. That is, perhaps, a little wide of the particular Amendment under discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am sorry, but as that is non-controversial, I thought I might give that explanation in connection with the next Amendment. Because 30 years appeared to be an over-estimate, and we should rather take 24 years—the time of expectancy between one death and another—we have fixed, not upon 7½ years, which is not a very convenient number, but upon five years—for six would be a little in excess of what would be justifiable—for the purpose of the first valuation.
§ Mr. E. G. PRETYMANI am afraid it is not entirely so uncontroversial a matter as the hon. Gentleman supposes. He forgets the parallel Estate Duty. There is consequently a very great difference in the two cases. In the case of the Estate Duty, that duty, not paid at the time, has escaped altogether. In the case of the Increment Value Duty, if not paid, it is only accumulating, and I may point out— and we are obliged to repeat this again and again—that it is this perpetual expense, trouble, and continuous valuation that we so strongly object to in this case. I do not propose to subscribe to all the hon. Gentleman said. I do not for the purpose of my argument think it is necessary to go into it. What I do wish to say 43 is that in this case there is no necessity to take the duty on these frequent occasions, because it is cumulative, and is not like the Death Duty. We ought in a case like this to endeavour to some extent to save the individual subject as much as possible. The object of the Crown is not to have the shortest possible intervals for the calculations of the increment, but as long intervals as it is possible without loss to the Crown. What I venture to suggest that those responsible for the Bill have to show to the Committee is, not how these calculations may or may not correspond with the calculations made for the Death Duties, but that a lengthening of the period as suggested by the Amendment would involve a serious loss to the Crown. So far no attempt has been made to show that.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYI do not think the hon. Gentleman can give any defence at all. Five years is fixed, because if you reduce the period in the Finance Act the net result will come out at 7½ years or six years, and therefore the Government make it five. It is a most extraordinary argument. I only rose because the hon. Gentleman addressed his argument to my Amendment, and not to the Amendment on the Paper, and I was rather afraid my Amendment might be ruled out of order when it was reached on the Notice Paper. I ask the Government most earnestly whether this period of 15 years can be accepted as a fair one to companies and corporations? Is it fair that large industrial companies in the country who are brought under this provision should be compelled to make this valuation every 15 years? Large companies such as the great iron and steel works in the country have not only large quantities of land, but of minerals also, and to compel them to have periodic valuations at such very short periods would be quite unreasonable. No one can possibly say 15 years is equivalent to a generation. I think we are justified in saying that these terms should be enlarged because of the extraordinary inconvenience and expense which would be put upon corporations on account of these valuations of which we have learned so very little up to the present. There is another class of persons alluded to in these Debates—the clergy of the country, who, I believe, are still considered as coming in under this clause. I think it would be very unreasonable to put upon the clergy the expense of having a valuation 44 every 15 years. Therefore I hope that before we arrive at my Amendment the Government will consider the expediency of giving us some enlargement beyond the terms of the Bill.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHThe Increment Duty is recognised as an entirely new tax. If this tax is imposed in the manner provided in the Bill corporations will be called upon in 1914 to pay the first Increment Duty. That means that this clause will have a retrospective effect. If in 1914 the first Increment Duty will have to be paid that means that the Increment Duty will be retrospective for the past 10' years, otherwise there is no justification for the Government to say that at the end of five years' time they are to obtain the first Increment Duty. The individual has to take his chance. If he dies within the period of 15 years Increment Duty has to be paid. I think the Government could very easily give this concession that from whatever date or period the time is established it should correspond with a generation whether 15 or 20 years. I think that would meet the idea of fairness and equity to all parties concerned. If this date of 1914 was moved up, and the first period fixed at 15 or 20 years as the date when Increment Duty should be collected, I think that would be much more just.
§ Viscount MORPETHThe hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Government assured us there was no principle in this Amendment, and then he proceeded to enumerate a number of principles which he brushed aside because he said they were inconvenient. Inconvenient to whom? To the Government or to the taxpayer? If they are inconvenient to the Government surely it is only a matter of calculation. It is rather an extraordinary thing that the Government should put forward the inconvenience to the taxpayer as any part of the consideration to be advanced under this Bill, because quite apart from the question of money, the Bill itself bristles with inconveniences to the taxpayer. If it is only a question of inconvenience to the Government, I suggest to them that the taxpayer would rather pay with some slight inconvenience of arithmetic and calculation at the further period of 7½ years, which at any rate is a gain of 2½ years. It seems to me that we have no right whatever to overtax corporations because of some little inconvenience of the Treasury, and if that is the only argument that the Government can put forward it is a very poor one.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI tried to understand the Under-Secretary, but I did not succeed. I am quite sure it was not his fault; perhaps it was due to the intricacy of the subject. I failed altogether to understand some of the reasons by which the Government arrived at this period of five years. As I understood the hon. Member, he treated bodies corporate and unin-corporate, which do not die in the same way as individuals, who do die. He said we have assumed that the average life of a generation is thirty years. We assume that individuals will pay once in 30 years, and the hon. Gentleman went on to say that that being so we arrive at 15 years as the period for corporations. I do not understand why, if an individual lives and enjoys his property 30 years, the corporation period is only to be for 15 years. The hon. Gentleman explained he arrived at 15 years because the individual lives 30 years. I confess I do not see any connection between the two. What we are specially concerned with on this occasion is what should be the first occasion on which the payments should take place. The hon. Gentleman, having arrived at 15 years, told us the half of 15 years is 7½ years, and as that is a complicated and difficult figure which may embarrass gentlemen so simple-minded as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, we will substitute an easy figure such as five years for the complicated figure of 7½ years. The argument does not seem to me to explain itself, or, indeed, to be any argument at all. The hon. Gentleman said whereas the individual has to pay cash down the corporation may spread its payment over the period of years. The individual, if he does not pay cash down, will be charged interest from the date on which the tax accrued, but the corporation, which spreads itself over 15 years, will be charged no interest at all. That is in favour of the corporation, and I admit that it is just to ask some shorter period from the corporation than the individual. But while making allowance for that, I would set against it the inconvenience and cost involved to the corporation in having these frequent valuations. The Government has an absolute security, be the period long or short, for their money. In these circumstances, I agree with my hon. Friends as to the desirability of giving bodies corporate or un-incorporate the longest period possible in order to save them that expense, which brings in no additional money to the Exchequer. But I only rose in order to ask the Under-Secretary for the Home Office whether he will make it clear to me why, 46 the life of an individual being 30 years, it becomes proper to take 15 years in the case of a body corporate or unincorporate, and why, if it becomes proper to take 15 years, it should be proper to take half that time as the period for the first valuation?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am sorry that I was so obscure. In the case of the individual, the first case which has been put forward, we are only dealing with an expectancy. The corporation for certain will have to be assessed for the tax in 1914. We are dealing with the probability of the life in the case of the Death Duties, and therefore a good many estates will come under Increment Tax between the passing of the Act and the year 1914, and will all come in under the new duties, but no corporation will pay duties before 1914.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThe 30 years is the average. The hon. Gentleman has first taken the average, and then says all people would not reach that average, and he has tried to strike the average by halving his former average.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am dealing now with how we get down to 15 years. Take the simplest case that where the increment is a continual increment. We allow 30 years as the probable time of death; the increment which is paid then is increment which has been accruing all that time. What I want to point out is that the average of that increment is to be found in the fifteenth year. Take increment which, say, is started in 1900, and goes on to 1930. But a very small amount of increment will have accrued in the year 1901, and what he is really paying is the average increment in 1915, that is the 15 years' period. Is that clear? [Cries of "No."] If I have not made myself clear, I am afraid I must leave it to somebody else to make it clear. I think the right hon. Gentleman is on the strongest ground in criticising the five years' period. On the system which I have explained it would seem as if it ought to be 7½ years, but, as we are advised by experts, 30 years was considerably too long a period for taxes, and probably the life of an estate is more nearly 20 years than 30 years.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat makes the matter much more serious.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI am only trying to take the two cases. Suppose you take 20 years, five years is an exact proportion of that. It is no great advantage to corpora- 47 tions to be assessed in 1915 or 1914. They will proceed to pay one-fifteenth of the increment during each year, and the operation will not be complete until 1930.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThis is a very difficult matter, but I think I understand the lion. Member's meaning up to a certain point. I think he is mistaken in taking half the period which he assumes to be the life of the individual. I think it complicates matters if we introduce 24 years. If the Government say henceforth we will take 24 years to be the life of the individual, I shall be perfectly ready to conform my argument to that. I think this proves that the Death Duties, even as imposed by Sir William Harcourt, are a much more onerous charge than Sir William anticipated. It will, however, be time enough to discuss the bearing of those points when we reach that portion of the clause which deals with those duties. Let me assume that 30 years is the undisputed average for the individual, and it is on that assumption we are now arguing. The natural thing would be to fix 30 years for the body corporate or unin-corporate. The hon. Gentleman takes 15 years because he says that would be the average, but he forgets that 30 years is itself the average. Some people die at less than one year and some enjoy succession for 50 or 60 years, but 30 years is the average. The Government treat that as if it was the average, and then they halve it. If the hon. Gentleman will take as much trouble to understand my argument as I have taken to understand his, I think he will begin to feel that my argument has something in it, and that the Government are working upon a mistaken basis. But, assuming the Government are right, why do you again halve the 15 years? Let us assume that 15 years is the proper period for bodies corporate or unincorporate. Why do you halve the half of the average again?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe right hon. Gentleman is assuming that no one dies.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI assume that people die at the same rate after this Budget as they did before, it. It has been stated that whether a man lives or dies the Government are going to get more out of him, and while there are clauses in this Bill which might induce a man to live there are others which might induce him to die. I assume some will die in the first year, and some will 48 live longer than the average. Some people will die much earlier than the average, and some will live much longer. Why are you to take a half or less than a quarter of the average instead of the average itself as a period upon which corporations ought to pay? I do not think I can make the point any clearer. Although I think I understand what has induced the Government to frame the Bill in this way, I confess that I cannot see any justification for it.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe right hon. Gentleman wishes to know why, if the average in the case of an individual is once in 30 years, we should make a corporation pay once in 15 years. The principle is that we reckon each individual, to use an Hiber-nianism, will die once in 30 years. If he pays his increment then in a lump sum, he will, in fact, pay each of the preceding 30 years' income on an average of 15 years after the increment accrues. For the last 15 years it is clear that each year's increment is paid at a less average. The first year goes 29 years back, and that is paid 29 years after the increment accrues. He pays the next year's increment 28 years after it has accrued, the next 27, and so on down to 15 years. Then at 15 years he begins to pay less, so that if you average all these payments, he pays on the average each year's increment 15 years after it accrues, and that has been taken by way of an average for corporations. We have said that it is to the interest of a corporation that it should begin to clear off its increment fairly early, and, therefore, we take five years. Following the strict analogy of the Death Duties, we ought, perhaps, to have taken six years, and taken 24 years instead of 30 as the proper average. That gives us a certain mathematical reason for selecting five years. I think it is better, when the valuation is complete in 1909, that the increment should be cleared off at an early date.
§ Mr. GEORGE CAVEI think I appreciate the Attorney-General's points. Take a generation as 30 years. The individual pays at the end of 30 years. A corporation has to pay in the middle of 30 years, but let us see what the consequence is. The first corporation payment ought to be made in the middle of the first 30 years—that is, after 15 years. Let us look into the matter a little further. It follows equally clearly that the second payment ought to be paid 49 in the middle of the second 30 years—that is, 45 years from now. You ought to begin at 15 years, and proceed by periods of 30 years. The Attorney-General has made this point so clear that it has completely upset his own Bill. Assuming he is right that the first payment ought to be made after 15 years, surely, in face of that, this cutting of the first division into something nearly half is perfectly without justification. He takes half of 15 years, and, for some reason, places it at five years. Assuming his arithmetic to be right, the hon. and learned Gentleman does not tell us why he does it. I think this Amendment has led to a very useful discussion, and no kind of answer has been given to it.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI should like to ask the Government whether they take their basis of the length of life as 30 years or 24 years? First they argue it on the 30 years' basis, and, taking half that, they make it 15. Then they halve that, and place it at seven and a half, and, by making a sort of round shot, they arrive at five years. When the point has been argued they say
§ 24 years is the right basis, and you get the quarter of this as six years. As there is only one year difference between this six years and five, the Government say they will stick to five years. I want to know if the Government think the average chance of life is 24 years or 30 years? Possibly the effect of the Budget may be to depreciate it to 24 years.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYThe proposal of the Government does not in any way ease the company, but, on the contrary, it involves them in a valuation at the end of live years for what the Government admit is an extremely small advantage. I think the Attorney-General might agree to put in some figure which will not involve companies in a valuation at the end of five years with very little advantage to the State.
§ Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 71.
51| Division No. 311.] | AYES. | [4.45 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T C. R. | Cross, Alexander | Henry, Charles S. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cullinan, J. | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Alden, Percy | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Astbury, John Meir | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Delany, William | Hogan, Michael |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Barker, Sir John | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Donelan, Captain A. | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Barnes, G. N. | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Beale, W. P. | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Joyce, Michael |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Evans, Sir S. T. | Kavanagh, Walter M. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Everett, R. Lacey | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Fenwick, Charles | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Bennett, E. N. | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Flynn, James Christopher | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Black, Arthur W. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lundon, T. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Ginnell, L. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Mackarness, Frederic C. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Grant, Corrie | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Cameron, Robert | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Halpin, J. | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Maddison, Frederick |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Massie, J. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Clough, William | Harmsworth R. L. (Caithness-sh.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hart-Davies, T. | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Mooney, J. J. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Haworth, Arthur A. | Morrell, Philip |
| Cooper, G. J. | Hayden, John Patrick | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Napier, T. B. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Nicholls, George | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Tomkinson, James |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Toulmin, George |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Rowlands, J. | Verney, F. W. |
| Nussey, Sir Willans | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Walsh, Stephen |
| Nuttall, Harry | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Walton, Joseph |
| O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wardle, George J. |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Sears, J. E. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Seely, Colonel | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Dowd, John | Shackleton, David James | Watt, Henry A. |
| O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) | Sheehy, David | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Slean, Thomas Henry | Weir, James Galloway |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Snowden, P. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Soares, Ernest J. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Pirie, Duncan V. | Stanger, H. Y. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Rainy, A. Rolland | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Strachey, Sir Edward | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Reddy, M. | Summerbell, T. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Sutherland, J. E. | |
| Redmond, William (Clare) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Rees, J. D. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Craik, Sir Henry | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Balcarres, Lord | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Faber, George Denison (York) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fell, Arthur | Radford, G. H. |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Forster, Henry William | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Gardner, Ernest | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bertram, Julius | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Renton, Leslie |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hamilton, Marquess of | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Stanier, Seville |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hills, J. W. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Joynson-Hicks, William | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cave, George | Kerry, Earl of | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Winterton, Earl |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. James Hope and Mr. Leverton |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Morpeth, Viscount | Harris. |
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILmoved in section (1) to leave out "fifteenth" ["and in every fifteenth year"]and to insert thirtieth."
The arguments used Attorney-General have proved that I have infinitely greater justification for moving this before. If I understood his arguments correctly, there is every reason for the Government giving way on this Amendment and substituting every 30 years as the future interval at which corporations and similar bodies should pay the Increment Duty for the 15 years proposed in the Bill. The proper arrangement, according to the Attorney-General's 52 own arguments, would be that we should fix 15 years hence as the time at which corporations ought, in the first instance, to pay Increment Duty, and that after that they should pay every 30 years. Thirty years is the average of a generation, and I do not understand why corporations are to be treated less favourably than the average individual. It is not as if individuals necessarily die every 30 years. There are some who live a longer period and there are some who live a shorter period, but the general average hitherto has always been accepted to be about 30 or 33 years. If that be the average as regards individuals, I maintain that corporations and corporate bodies 53 ought to be treated on a similar plane. I think, without further elaboration of the figures, it is quite sufficient to appeal to the Attorney-General's arguments on the last Amendment, and to press the fact that corporations and individuals ought to be treated on the same basis. I beg to move that 30 years be substituted as the interval between the two dates when Increment Duty is to be charged instead of 15 years.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI should have thought this point was settled by the long arguments we have already had.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILThis is the future.
§ Mr. MASTERMANAll the arguments on the last Amendment were directed to this point, and we made it clear that a corporation would get an enormous ad-vantage over an individual in the fact that the corporation payment is spread over 15 years. Therefore, if the increment commences, say, in 1914, the last payment will only be paid in 1929. That is not the case with the individual. If any of it is not paid for the moment, it has to be paid with interest, which is equivalent to payment at the moment. I do not think the hon. Member proposes to withdraw the boon we are giving to corporations of payment spread over 15 years, or that he wishes interest to be charged to corporations during those 15 years. In those circumstances, corporations would be deprived altogether of their favourable position compared with individuals.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECILThe hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave) pointed out that the proper arrangement was to begin at the end of 15 years, and then to go on at intervals of 30 years. That argument has not been answered.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIt is expressly provided in section (5) that nothing in the clause is to affect the collection of Increment Value Duty on the grant of a lease or on the transfer on sale of any land or interest in land by a body corporate or unincorporate. The only other occasion of collection is death, and what you have to do is to look at the question of death when you are comparing the case of an individual with that of a corporation; and, as an ordinary generation is somewhere between 30 and 36 years, it is impossible to say, simply comparing the two on the one point of death, that it is fair to make corporations pay at the end of every 15 years. Of course, there is this point also: If you make it 15 years instead 54 of 30, as in the Bill, the chances are that the Revenue will not get the income which it otherwise might. The Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day, in reply to a deputation, gave certain facts. Some trouble has been taken to average the number of title deeds of pieces of land, and it has been found that the average life of a 14 years' lease is just under 10 years. On an average of 30 years the Increment Duty will become payable by a private individual in 10 years. If you are going to introduce 15 years as the line for the purposes of a company you will considerably reduce the average for the ownership by companies. As a matter of common sense you will reduce it from 10 years to eight years, and in the case of companies is it reasonable to expect more than 10 per cent, increment on land in eight years? I do not think it is. This Bill as it stands provides carefully that corporations shall not pay an increment at all. You are also making it very difficult for them, because at repeated intervals you are putting them to considerable trouble, inconvenience and annoyance in preparing returns without doing any real good. You are not taking the best steps possible to secure the payment of duty to the same extent as is demanded of private individuals. There is no reason whatever for treating a company differently from private individuals. But by this you are going to collect it differently on transfer and on lease.
§ Mr. J. BERTRAMI am in favour of 15 years as against 30. If corporations are to render these accounts to Somerset House every thirtieth year instead of every fifteenth year, it will involve very much heavier work on the officials. I certainly think the shorter period a much more reasonable arrangement.
§ Mr. LAURENCE HARDYI do not think the arguments could have been put better than they were by the hon. Member for Kingston (Mr. Cave). The Government, in their defence, put considerable stress on the question of instalments. But after all, the question of instalments is very much one of convenience to the persons paying the tax. In this matter of convenience, too, the taxpayer should have precedence in consideration before the official.
§ Question put, "That the word fifteenth stand part of the clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 71.
57| Division No. 312.] | AYES. | [5.9 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Ginnell, L. | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Grant, Corrie | O'Dowd, John |
| Alden, Percy | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Astbury, John Meir | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Barker, Sir John | Hart-Davies, T. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Reddy, M. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Haworth, Arthur A. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hayden, John Patrick | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Beale, W. P. | Hedges, A. Paget | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Henry, Charles S. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Bertram, Julius | Hobart, Sir Robert | Rowlands, J. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Hogan, Michael | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Holland, Sir William Henry | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Horniman, Emslie John | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Sears, J. E. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Shackleton, David James |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Sloan, Thomas Henry |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Joyce, Michael | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Snowden, P. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Kekewich, Sir George | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Laidlaw, Robert | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Cameron, Robert | Lambert, George | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Summerbell, T. |
| Cleland, J. W. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Clough, William | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lundon, T. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lyell, Charles Henry | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Cooper, G. J. | Macpherson, J. T. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Tomkinson, James |
| Crean, Eugene | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Toulmin, George |
| Cross, Alexander | M'Micking, Major G. | Verney, F. W. |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Maddison, Frederick | Walsh, Stephen |
| Davies, Ellis William (Elfion) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Walton, Joseph |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Marrham, F. J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Delany, William | Massie, J. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Masterman, C. F. G. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Menzies, Sir Walter | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Doneian, Captain A. | Micklem, Nathaniel | Weir, James Galloway |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Morrell, Philip | Whitbread, S. Howard |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Murphy, John (Kerry, East) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Nanier, T. B. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Fenwick, Charles | Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Nolan, Joseph | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | |
| Freeman-Thomas, Freeman | Nussey, Sir Willans | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Nuttall, Harry | |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F. | Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Bignold, Sir Arthur |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Bowles, G. Stewart |
| Balcarres, Lord | Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Bridgeman, W. Clive |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Bull, Sir William James |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Harris, Frederick, Leverton | Radford, G. H. |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Castlereagh Viscount | Heaton, John Henniker | Renton, Leslie |
| Cave, George | Hill, Sir Clement | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Hills, J. W. | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Chaplain, Rt. Hon. Henry | Joynson-Hicks, William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kerry, Earl of | Stanier, Beville |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Winterton, Earl |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Woiff, Gustav Wilheim |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morpeth, Viscount | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Forster, Henry William | Newdegate, F. A. | |
| Gardner, Ernest | Percy, Earl | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Laurence |
| Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B. S. Edmunds) | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| Hamilton, Marquess of | Pretyman, E. G. | Hardy. |
§ Mr. PRETYMANmoved, at the end of section (1) to add, "except upon land, or any interest in land in respect of which there has been an occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been due, under Clause 4 of this Act, within the preceding 15 years."
The Amendment which I propose is rather of the same kind as that which has already been discussed. I will not repeat the arguments already used, but I will point out that in dealing with corporations you are dealing with two kinds of property—one the property which they occupy, and the other the property in which they deal, and there is very considerable difference between the two. In regard to the property which they occupy for the purposes of their businesses or trade, as these corporations do not die, it is perfectly true that no duty at all will be leviable upon it. On that kind of property which they occupy for the purposes of their business it is obvious that if there is to be Increment Duty at all, it must be at an interval. In regard to property in which they deal, land, it is obvious that they must pay when it is transferred, and it does appear unnecessary that where there has been a transaction within the 15 years, within the period between the two charges of duty, which we have just imposed under section? of this clause—that where there has been a case in which a valuation has been sent in and a calculation made since the last occasion when Increment Duty became payable—it does seem unnecessary to again charge them at the statutory period. The Attorney-General will see that the effect of my Amendment will be that when an occasion arises in the sense which we have just passed, in which the corporation would have to pay Increment Value Duty, they would have to state that 58 they had paid since the preceding occasion, so that they will be exempt in regard to property in which they dealt. This will apply to cases in which they lease land, because, of course, if they have sold the property, they cannot have any more liability in regard to it. It is obvious that if a corporation has alienated a portion of its property by sale, they will come under section (5) of this clause, and they will have had to pay the duty, but this provision does affect and very seriously affect the cases, which are numerous, where a corporation grants a lease, or where a corporation has had the reversion of a lease to call in, and owing to that fact has had within one year or two years, or some period very much less than 15 years, actually to have its property valued and have paid the duty. In those circumstances it does seem unnecessary to put them to that expense again.
I will add a further argument, which I think has some little weight. Where a private individual is being assessed it has been suggested from the Government Bench that he may, and sometimes will, make a rough-and-ready valuation. He may have somebody to do the work for him; he is the only person affected, and the consequence rests upon him as to the class of valuation he chooses to make. In the case of a corporation, however, they are obviously responsible to their shareholders, or if they are corporate bodies they are responsible to other people, and it is clear that a valuation made for the purpose of paying duty in every case must be a valuation which can be supported by professional opinion of those who are not in their employment, and it must be a valuation which they can show to their shareholders and to the public, and this valuation upon which they pay duty must be a responsible valuation which can be 59 substantially supported. A valuation of this character must be expensive and costly, and that the Government should compel them, at such frequent intervals, to make it seems quite unnecessary. Meanwhile the Increment Duty will be piling up. There will be no loss to the Government and no permanent exemption, unless they can show that they have paid the duty within the period between the occasions stated, but under this section they will still be liable, and I would suggest to the hon and learned Attorney-General that ha might usefully accept this Amendment, and save a great deal of expense to the subject, while he would incur very little loss to the State.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONThe hon. Gentleman kindly gave me a copy of this Amendment, and although the arguments which he has used in its favour have a good deal of force, they appear to me to tell against the Amendment, from the point of view of those who desire to favour corporations, because it is quite clear that as the Bill now stands we may have to take small increments. The Amendment suggested by the hon. Member, of course, does not refer to the case of sales, and we need not trouble about property which is sold. In the case of granting of a lease, the lease must be for more than 14 years, in order to constitute an occasion, and I think the occasions to which the hon. Gentlemen refers will be infrequent. Let us take a case. You have granted a lease; some lease has been transferred, and the result is an occasion has arisen and Increment Value Duty has been assessed. Shortly afterwards comes the end of the 15 years, and the hon. Member says is it fair that the corporation should he put to the inconvenience of having to give a fresh account?
§ Mr. PRETYMANNot necessarily shortly after, six or seven years.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONThen in that case there is a substantial increment. I was putting this in favour of the hon. Gentleman's argument. You get a fixed period for assessing the increment laid down, but a short time after comes an occasion for assessing the increment under Clause 4. If it does not come in a short time there is a fair possibility of an increment; if it does come in a short time there is another point of view from which to look at it. The corporation does not have put upon it the obligation of rendering 60 some entirely new account, which otherwise it would never have to render at all. Under the Act of 1885, and this is a most important thing to remember when measuring the inconvenience put upon corporations1—under the Act of 1885, in order to satisfy—
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt is not the same thing. Corporations under the Act of 1885 are quite different people to those under this.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONI beg the hon. Member's pardon. They are not different people at all.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThey are all ex-exempted under the Act of 1885.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONNo; different kinds of property are exempted; but it is provided that any body corporate or un-incorporate, contemplated under that Act shall deliver or cause to be delivered the account which has been mentioned. I say that bodies corporate or unincorporate have to deliver an account which is equivalent to the Legacy and Succession Duty account. There are a great many exemptions which may apply to the property, but every body corporate has to deliver an account in order that the Corporation Duty may be assessed upon it. It has already to set forth the whole of its property during the year. The hon. Gentleman says, and says quite rightly, that that does not cover all corporations, and we are proposing to cover all corporations. That, again, only means that we are making them render an account which otherwise they would have to keep every year. Every corporation has to do for itself that which, under the Act of 1885, some corporations have to do. It has to make an account of the annual value of the income or profits that have accrued to the body during the year, and it is prudent and proper that in the case of all well-governed corporations there is an account which will comprise a valuation of its property. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that corporations do these things by experts, and they do them much more thoroughly than they are done by individuals. That is an argument in favour of the Government, rather than of the Amendment. A corporation year by year collects and system-atises all the particulars that we require, and all that they have to do is to render an account, which, it is shown, it is no serious inconvenience to do, under the circumstances. What benefit do they get 61 by it? They get the benefit of the 10 per cent, margin, within which no Increment Duty is assessed. Really the 10 per cent, margin is much more likely to be of benefit to them to a greater extent than the rendering of this account, which they have already to make in the ordinary course will be an inconvenience. I do not think we are putting any substantial inconvenience upon them. Surely they have—and must keep—an account of their affairs, almost identical to the account which is required, not exactly identical but almost identical. They must value their property in the ordinary way, and all they have to do is to make up the account, which will certainly not be a task of tremendous difficulty. Against that little additional trouble they will have the privilege of this 10 per cent, margin.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI think the Attorney-General after his speech can do nothing less than accept the Amendment, which he has only refused on two grounds, one being that these accounts have to be kept or rendered by every company.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONThese accounts have to be kept, not by all companies, of course, but every corporation, covered by the Act of 1885, has to keep such accounts.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThe hon. and learned Gentleman is beginning to reduce his claims very considerably. The Attorney-General told us that every corporation has already to keep these accounts for the purpose of the Act of 1885.
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONNo; I did not say so. I said that every corporation had to keep such accounts not for the purpose of the Act of 1885. Some corporations have to keep them for the purposes of that Act, and other corporations would have to keep accounts of the same character as those kept for the purposes of the Act of 1885.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIs the argument reduced to this that every corporation has to keep accounts?
§ Sir WILLIAM ROBSONAccounts exactly similar to those required by the Act of 1885.
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt is very difficult to follow his argument, but the argument used as we understood it was that every corporation had to keep accounts under the Act of 1885. If that was not his argu- 62 ment, I do not know what was. He argued that they had to keep these accounts in any case.
§ Sir W. ROBSONCertainly.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThen what does the argument amount to? For the purposes of his argument the hon. and learned Gentleman told us that these accounts had already to be kept. But by what companies? He must have been perfectly well aware that companies ordinarily carrying on trade or business are not affected at all by the Inland Revenue Act of 1885. It really is not fair to the Committee to use such an argument as that and cloud the issue by reference to that Act, as if it covered the same ground as this Bill. That Act only refers to a few companies. It is mainly concerned with city corporations and no others. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that this Act of 1885 really covers any larger area than that of city companies and other cognate bodies?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI do not.
§ Mr. PRETYMANDoes this Bill not cover the area of every company dealing in land throughout the Kingdom?
§ Sir W. ROBSONCertainly.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThen where is the argument? It really is not fair to the Committee. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has not had time to study the Amendment, and desires it to be deferred, or if he has any argument to use against it, it is perfectly right and proper that we should be influenced by it, but it is not fair to use an argument of that kind which does not apply to the case at all. Every industrial company in the country which is concerned with, and which deals in, land, has two kinds of property, one which it occupies and one which it uses in the course of its business. That which it occupies will necessarily have to come under this clause in order that it should be liable to duty at all, and the other kind of property in which it deals will necessarily come under the purview of Clause 4, and will be liable to duty, and companies should not be put to the additional expense of preparing a valuation. By the hon. and learned Gentleman's own admission, none of these companies, except city companies, are affected by the Act of 1885 at all, and none of them have to prepare or keep accounts in any way concerned with that Act, therefore the whole 63 argument falls to the ground, and I do not see how he can refuse this Amendment. The proposal merely is that where the duty has been paid in the ordinary course on transfer or on a lease, a company shall not be obliged to again send in a valuation until a further statutory 'period has elapsed. It is a reasonable Amendment. There will be no loss of revenue, and there will be a great saving of trouble, and I really think after the defence which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, which was no defence at all, and did not touch the subject in any way, he might accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. GEORGE CAVEThe Amendment I understand is this. If the period for the account arrives within 15 years after a payment already made on a lease, the account need not be rendered, the object of the clause being to avoid frequent valuation. If the hon and learned Gentleman had said 15 years is too long, and had conceded that if there had been a lease within ten or five years, there need not to a further valuation for 15 years I could have understood it. But he opposed the Amendment on totally different grounds, and said that corporations already have to make this valuation. For that purpose he used two arguments. He said corporations have to render a similar account under section 11 of the Act of 1885. Of course they have not to do so at all. Those which are subject to the Act have to render accounts simply of yearly income, or profits accruing during the year—a perfectly simple thing to do. They say they have received so much during the year, and they pay 5 per cent, on it. There is no valuation at all involved in that. The hon. and learned Gentleman sees that that does not cover the ground quite, and says even if they have not to render accounts they must keep accounts, that is, they must have on their books the value of all their property. Does he really suggest to the Committee that every corporation, even those which do not have to render accounts at all under the Act of 1885, value their land every year? Does a rector value his glebe every year? No one dreams of it. Friendly societies render no accounts under the Act of 1885. Surely they do not value their land every year. There is no reason why they should. The answer of the hon. and learned Gentleman is no answer at all. It is not the fact that if you excepted the corporations from the duty of valuing under this section they 64 would have to value in any case. Experience shows that this is not so. Suppose, say in 1913, there has been a lease of corporation land, and for that purpose a valuation has been made and duty assessed or paid. Then comes 1914, the first 15-yearly period. What we suggest is that as you have already paid in 1913 you ought not to have to value again in 1914. Probably no duty will result from the valuation, but for that very reason it is a burden on the corporation which it ought not to bear. The same thing might occur before every 15-yearly period under the section. It is a substantial grievance, and I think it might be easily met if the Government would say that if there has been a payment of duty within five years of the 15-yearly period they will dispense with valuation.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe point here has become important because of the way it has been dealt with by the Attorney-General. He seems to be under the impression that practically all corporations are bound to-day to keep certain accounts mentioned in the Customs Act of 1885, whereas I suppose the number of corporations will probably be about one in 20,000. It is a mere estimate, but when you compare all the railway companies, banks, friendly societies, religious institutions, all those bodies which are now to be taxed, with the two or three city companies and concerns such as the Zoological Society, which have no shareholders, and who are the only people within the purview of the Customs Act of 1885, it is obvious that any argument at all such as the Attorney-General tries to use to show that what is now required from a corporation is already provided for is absolutely futile. He says for their own purposes they have to keep accounts, and they must make a valuation every year. From the point of view of business knowledge the statement of the Attorney-General has completely taken my breath away. It is one of the most preposterous statements I have ever heard made in the House of Commons, and I am certain no business man on the other side would say it is the practice of railway or other limited companies to make a fresh valuation of their property every year. Ninety-nine companies out of a hundred put down from year to year the amount of their capital, represented by their assets, at the amount stated the year before, writing off a trifle for depreciation. They cannot alter the capital statement of accounts without 65 bringing themselves into difficulties, and they never dream of doing it. The capital account is always brought forward as from last year, with the solitary exception of purchases and sales. The occasions upon which any corporation makes a revaluation of the whole of its holding are very rare. I do not suppose they are oftener than the number of years which the Attorney-General has put in, 15 or 30, as the case may be. I have never seen it done in all the limited companies which have come under my own knowledge. When the Government are trying to meet criticisms of this kind, it is futile to make excuses such as those which have been made by way of answer to the Amendment. They are founded upon ignorance of the facts, and the arguments which result from that ignorance are so astonishing that any business man cannot help feeling that the whole support of the clause is baseless.
§ Mr. MORRELLMay I ask whether the Amendment is in order at all? We have decided that where land belongs to a corporation it should be subject to this duty, and I submit that the present section does not deal with the amount of the duty, but merely with the occasions on which it could be paid. The Amendment, I understand, is an attempt to take out certain land from the operation of section 1.
The CHAIRMANI do not think there is anything out of order in this. In every Bill you lay down certain principles and the clauses dealing with the carrying out of the machinery are nearly always subject to a process of whittling away what you lay down in the first clause. But in this case I do not think that whittling away is at all out of order.
§ Sir E. CARSONEveryone on this side is extremely anxious to redeem the promise made by my right hon. Friend the other morning, but I submit that on a matter of this kind we ought to have some specific answer. I think it is very much more important than appears at first sight. We ought always to keep in view in every Amendment we get the opportunity of moving the object which we have in view in this Amendment, namely, to prevent unnecessary valuations at too frequent intervals, thereby putting the owner of land to the expense of valuations which will turn out to be absolutely useless, or which may be more expensive than the tax which is imposed. What my hon. and gallant Friend says is that if, in the case of a cor- 66 poration, you have had within fifteen years such a dealing with the land that Increment Duty has been already collected, you ought not, upon the expiration of the fifteen years, demand another valuation and the incurring of the expense which this clause as it stands will involve. That is not taking away anything. You take away, perhaps, a period of five, four, three, or two years, or even one year, and you tell the corporation, "Although you have paid Increment Duty, it may be last year, we will put you to the expense of another valuation, which you must present because the period of fifteen years is up." What is the answer to that? I gather that the Attorney-General says that the companies have to do something analogous to that already. I want the Committee to realise that under the Customs Act of 1885, which requires certain companies to make returns, there is nothing at all analogous to what is intended to be done by this section. In the first place, all that the companies do, under that Act, is to make a return of annual profits. I suppose everybody who is carrying on an honest business keeps some kind of an account of annual profits. What has that got to do with the making of these valuations? If the Committee will realise that all we are attempting to do is to save the expense of valuations, I think they will see the force of the arguments which have been put forward. I want the Committee to realise, and I hope the country will realise, the class of persons whom you are now drawing in for the first time and compelling to make these returns, and who will therefore have to pay the expense of the valuations. The Customs Act exempts seven different classes of people and corporations. Under this Bill one or two of them are brought in, and some are left out. This return will have to be made by every friendly society, every savings' bank, every insurance company, and every building society through the whole country. Many of these bodies, like friendly societies, provident insurance societies, and savings banks, are owners of very small holdings in land, and to call upon people who, two, three, four, or five years before have paid Increment Duty—because the end of the 15 years has come round—to make a valuation which must be sent to the Revenue Department, whether there is an increment or not on their land, is a gross hardship, which will be greatly resented by all those bodies. I have not at all exhausted the enumeration of them. You will have questions arising, not only 67 in the case of corporations and great bodies owning large amounts of land, but in the case of every single corporate or un-incorporate body which in any way has invested its funds, or its reserves, in any interest of any kind in land. I hope we will be able to get some statement from the Government as to how far they have made up their minds to allow these bodies to come within the exemptions in the Bill. Suffice it to say at present that you are putting on these bodies an enormous and unnecessary expense out of all proportion to the Increment Duty you will get. You are even doing it unnecessarily, because admittedly, if you accept the Amendment, you will not lose a shilling of the Increment Duty you are to get under the Bill.
§ Mr. E. H. CARLILEThe Attorney-General based his argument in opposition to my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment chiefly on the ground that it did not matter how often these corporations or companies were called upon for valuations, because they had them already in their books, and were obliged to keep them for the purposes of their business. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that many of these corporations and companies allow their lands to stand in their books at a merely nominal figure. That happens in the case of a very large number of corporations. They steadily write down from year to year the value of their freehold property, because from time to time they move their whole interests from one place to another, in order to obtain the opportunity of carrying on their business under the most favourable circumstances. The result is that the valuation at which their land stands in their books is no sort of guide to what that land might realise if sold. Therefore the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman rests upon a false basis. It takes for granted that every corporation has a detailed statement in its books of the amount estimated as the equivalent of the value of the land. That is absolutely untrue. The nominal sum at which the freehold property stands in the books does not at all represent the actual value, so that if this Amendment is rejected, and these corporations and companies are put to the expense of revaluation at the short interval suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman a very heavy burden will be placed upon them—a burden which will be very unjust and inequitable.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am rather surprised that the Government do not attempt any answer to the arguments which have been pressed with such force by my hon. Friends. I do not think it facilitates progress to give no answer when such serious arguments are produced. I will state one more consideration why the Government should accept this Amendment. My hon. Friends have spoken of the interest of the taxpayer. I would point out that the Government in their own interest had better accept the Amendment. They have provided that where on the occasion of any valuation the increment is less than 10 per cent. the land shall be franked without payment of the tax not merely for that valuation, but all subsequent valuations. If they multiply the occasions for valuations they will multiply the occasions for franking. If you allow a reasonable period to elapse between valuations you may get an increment of 10, 12, or 15 per cent, on which duty will be paid, but if you have -frequent valuations you may have the same total increment in a given period, though at each valuation the increment does not exceed 10 per cent. That being so, the Treasury will get no tax, but you will double the expense to the taxpayer by doubling the cost to him for valuations. It clearly is not in the interest of the taxpayer that he should be burdened with the expense of valuation where he has no tax to pay; but if a charge is to be put on the taxpayer it is in the interest of the Treasury to get as much of that charge as possible, and that it should not be spent on surveyors, lawyers, or professional valuers. The more frequent the valuations the greater will be the chance that the increment will not amount to 10 per cent, between one period and another. If the Government have no feeling for the taxpayer—and I do not think they have much—they might have some regard for the interest of the Treasury.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIt must not be assumed that frequency of assessment is always a disadvantage to the subject. It may be that where you get two assessments close together the land-owner will be put to the trouble of a valuation, though the increment is nothing like so great as the limit of the 10 per cent, margin. I have already pointed out that when replying to the hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Amendment to the Amendment being in manuscript, there was no lime to consider it generally in all its bearings. What does 69 it amount to? It asks that when the time comes for a valuation at the expiration of the period of 15 years there is to be exempted from the valuation any interest in land in respect of which there has been an occasion on which Increment Value Duty has been paid within the preceding 15 years—that is to say, if at any time within 15 years before the occasion on which this duty is to be collected for the purpose of the Bill, there has been a sale or transfer, and Increment Duty has been paid on that, the property is to be exempted from the re-valuation. At first sight the proposal appears to be that when the occasion comes for collecting the Increment Value Duty we should allow no less than 14 years' increment on particular parts of the property involved to pass without payment. Obviously, that is a proposition greatly in excess of what is fair or just. The view I suggest is that the 15 years is fixed as being analogous to the case of death with an individual. Where an individual dies, duty is collected upon his property, but no one has suggested that you should exempt from the cases in which such duty is collected cases of transfer of interest, or cases in which Increment Value Duty has been paid during a certain number of years. Why should it be suggested in the case of corporations? The selection of the 15 years is merely the selection of a period analogous to the occasion of death. Nobody thinks that the death of an individual should be made a ground for exempting from the account cases in which Increment Value Duty has been paid during the preceding seven years. We are only dealing with cases where there is a transfer of some interest in property which would give rise to increment. We are keeping the imposition of this duty strictly analogous to the case of individuals. We are not making it precisely, exactly, or mathematically the same for corporations as for individuals—but, at all events, we are doing substantial justice to corporations, just as to individuals, and this Amendment would give an exceptional benefit to corporations, to which we cannot agree.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURI can hardly help thinking that the manner in which this matter has been dealt with is hardly fair to my hon. Friend (Mr. Pretyman). We know perfectly well that, under the agreement, this clause is to be finished before dinner-time, but that is really no reason why the Government should be absolved from trying to meet the real practical diffi- 70 culties of the case by accepting the Amendment. The chief defence which the Government have made is that the Exchequer will get less under the Bill than it will get under our Amendment, and that is the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer prefers a course which throws a great deal of unnecessary work upon the corporations. The throwing of this perfectly unusual, unnecessary burden upon the corporations, it is said, has the advantage of robbing the Exchequer. Was ever such a defence put forward by a Government for rejecting an Amendment which does not really interfere with the framework of the Bill, an Amendment which might be fully given without altering the substance of the Bill or its general propositions. What is the last additional defence of the Government? It is that the fixing of the 15 years is an endeavour to imitate in the case of corporations the accident of death which cuts short the tenure of individual property, and is the occasion on which these duties are to be levied. Does not the Attorney-General see such a fundamental difference in this respect between the immortal corporation and mortal people as to require just that kind of Amendment which my hon. Friend has proposed? At death you no doubt levy this tax upon the individual, and rightly, or at all events plausibly, because the property certainly changes hands. Very likely it is scattered among a large number of different owners; and it may change its character as well as its owner. But in the case of corporations the property changes neither its owner nor its character. It may be said that if you levy this tax every 15 years the corporation will know when it is going to be levied, and make its arrangements accordingly, and it will be able to make those arrangements in a manner most convenient and most economical to itself. That is perfectly true. But here and there, owing to the extraordinary revisions which the Government have introduced, a corporation may unexpectantly get off the one-fourteenth part of the duty, say that in the fourteenth year some transaction takes place which requires a valuation, then when the fifteenth year comes round there is a new valuation, but not a new duty unless the increment since the fourteenth year, as I understand it, has been over 10 per cent. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has now come into the House, though he has not heard the 71 greater portion of this argument, will see that there is no more substantial defence against this Amendment than the two defences which have been so far presented by the Attorney-General. These defences are in the first place a misreading or a misrecollection of the Act of 1885, and in the second place an entirely illusory analogy between the death of the individual and a 15-year period in the case of the corporation. These are the only two defences which have been entered. On the other side we pointed out two things to the Government; that to ask these corporations to go through a perpetual series of expensive valuations, very often when no duty is to be paid, is throwing upon them a perfectly unnecessary and onerous burden; and that the result of doing that, while it takes a great deal of money out of the pockets of the corporation, may really incidentally not merely give no money to the Exchequer, but give less money to the Exchequer than they would get under the Bill as we propose to amend it. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that no reply has been made to either of these arguments. The only reply made is that which I have given, and I ought perhaps, in perfect fairness to the Attorney-General, to add that he seems to think he has replied to our argument by saying that he stated them himself in his earlier speech. The mere fact that the Attorney-General agreed with our version of the fact is really, I venture to say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, no defence of the Bill as it stands. At this hour of the evening we did expect from the Government some knowledge of the Acts to which the Bill relates with specific reference, and some serious endeavour to reply to arguments which I am perfectly certain not a single Gentleman on the other side of the House who has heard the Debate will contend for one moment are without real weight or substance.
§ The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd-George)The proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Pretyman), as far as I can see, is that if there is a grant of a lease—becuse it would not arise in the case of a sale—within the 15 years and Increment Duty were paid upon it then, that the corporation should be exempt in respect of that particular property from the payment of duty to the end of the 15 years.
§ Mr. PRETYMANNot exempt from the duty, but that that should not be an occasion upon which it should be paid. There is no diminution of the duty.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe payment should be postponed in that case for another 15 years.
§ Mr. PRETYMANOr until there was another transfer.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI really think that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) was a little unjust towards the arguments of the Attorney-General, whose answer is really a perfectly sound one—that it is an analogy to the case of duty which is paid on death. Suppose it is a case of an individual, and the lease is granted to an individual, say, five years before his death, then he pays Increment Duty upon the lease which is granted; and it is proposed by the Bill that in a case of that kind the executors should, on the occasion of death, pay the Death Duty increment, if there is an increment. That is really analogous to the present case. The only difference here is the payment every 15 years instead of payment at death, but the payments are analogous to Death Duty. Of course corporations do not die. Suppose there is a lease seven years before the expiration of the 15 years' period? There may be very considerable increment in the meantime. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes that you should postpone payment for 22 years simply because there is a lease in the meantime. With every desire to meet the hon. and gallant Gentleman—because I quite realise that this is brought forward in a perfectly fair spirit—and while we are really anxious to go out of our way to meet an opposition which is so very fairly conducted, on this particular clause, I really do not think it would be possible, without absolutely destroying the whole principle of the Bill, to accept this Amendment. I do not mean to say that it would result in leases being granted by the thousand—I do not think it would be worth while—but that could be done; and I do not think that it would be a sufficient justification for postponing payment for 22 years in the case of a corporation merely because a lease is given seven years before the expiration of the 15 years' period.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 88; Noes, 245.
75| Division No. 313.] | AYES. | [6.15 p.m. |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, Hon. W. E. (B'y St. Edm'ds) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Haddock, George B. | Percy, Earl |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Banbury Sir Frederick George | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bertram, Julius | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Renton, Leslie |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hills, J. W. | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hunt, Rowland | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Joynson-Hicks, William | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Kerry, Earl of | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Cave, George | Kimber, Sir Henry | Stanier, Beville |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Starkey, John R. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Winterton, Earl |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lytteiton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | M'Arthur, Charles | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morpeth, Viscount | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir |
| Fell, Arthur | Morrison-Bell, Captain | A. Acland-Hood and Viscount |
| Forster, Henry William | Newdegate, F. A. | Valentia. |
| Gardner, Ernest | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Clynes, J. R. | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Hazel, Dr. A. E. W. |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hazleton, Richard |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.) | Hedges, A. Paget |
| Agnew, George William | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Cooper, G. J. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Aiden, Percy | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Henry, Charles S. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Cross, Alexander | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Cullinan, J. | Hobart, Sir Robert |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hogan, Michael |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Delany, William | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Barker, Sir John | Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Donelan, Captain A. | Jones, Leif (Appleby) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Joyce, Michael |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Kavanagh, Walter M. |
| Beale, W. P. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Beauchamp, E. | Esslemont, George Birnie | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Evans, Sir S. T. | Lambert, George |
| Bennett, E. N. | Everett, R. Lacey | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Fenwick, Charles | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Ferens, T. R. | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Flynn, James Christopher | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David |
| Black, Arthur W. | Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Lundon, T. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Fuller, John Michael F. | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gibb, James (Harrow) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Ginnell, L. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Grant, Come | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Greenwood, Hamar (York) | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Maddison, Frederick |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) |
| Cameron, Robert | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Massle, J. |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hart-Davies, T. | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Clough, William | Haworth, Arthur A. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Mooney, J. J. | Reddy, M. | Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury) |
| Morrell, Philip | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Redmond, William (Clare) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Ridsdale, E. A. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Nannetti, Joseph P. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Napler, T. B. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Tomkinson, James |
| Nicholls, George | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Toulmin, George |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Rose, Sir Charles Day | Verney, F. W. |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rowlands, J. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Walton, Joseph |
| Nussey, Sir Wilians | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Nuttall, Harry | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Scarisbrick, Sir T. T. L. | Waterlow, D. S |
| O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Sears, J. E. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Shackleton, David James | Weir, James Galloway |
| O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Sheehy, David | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) |
| O'Dowd, John | Simon, John Allsebrook | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Sloan, Thomas Henry | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Whittaker, Rt Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Snowden, P. | Wiles, Thomas |
| Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) |
| Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Soares, Ernest J. | Williamson, Sir A. |
| Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Stanger, H. Y. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Steadman, W. C. | Winfrey, R. |
| Pirle, Duncan V. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Pollard, Dr. G. H. | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Strachey, Sir Edward | |
| Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Summerbell, T. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Radford, G. H. | Sutherland, J. E. | |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONmoved, in section (2), to leave out the words in parentheses, "calculated, in cases where an interest in the land only is held, in accordance with the value of the interest."
I propose this Amendment to see if I can arrive at an understanding of what the meaning of these words is. How could you collect it in accordance with the value of the interest in the increment? I cannot make these words fit in with what we have already done in Clause 3, section (3): "When the Increment Value Duty is collected on the occasion of the grant of a lease, or on the transfer on passing on death of any interest in land, or on any periodical occasion in the case of an interest in land held by a body corporate or unincorporate, such proportionate part of the amount of the duty which is due shall be collected as may be determined by the Commissioners to be payable in respect of the interest in land created, transferred, passing on death, or held in accordance with the rules made by them for the purpose."
I want to know whether we are adding anything to what we have already done, and whether anybody has to pay more than the value of the interest in the land. It seems to me that we have already done this in Clauses 2 and 3, and that you had better use the words in those clauses 76 rather than retain those words of which I move the omission.
§ Sir W. ROBSONI do not think it can be said that the words are quite useless. Remember we are imposing a duty which is the result of a calculation of what is the value of the whole site, and we are dealing with only a partial interest the value of which is taken. The words are explanatory.
§ Sir E. CARSONWhat is the difference between this and section (3) of Clause 3? I think it is a most dangerous thing to put in words which have relation to one single interest or one owner, and not to put them in with regard to other owners.
§ Sir W. ROBSONWe have, already provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 dealing with individuals.
§ Sir E. CARSONNo.
§ Sir W. ROBSONWe are now dealing with corporations, and therefore we insert what really is the same provision as we have put in with reference to individuals. That is why the words are there. If they are useless, strike them out. But I do not think they are useless.
§ Sir E. CARSONThe hon. and learned Gentleman says we are now dealing with companies as we have dealt with individuals. That is not so. If the hon. and 77 learned Gentleman looks at section (3) of Clause 3 he will see the words, "On any periodical occasion in the case of any interest in land held by a body corporate or unincorporate." We have stated the process of valuation as regards death, transfer, fee simple, and the granting of leases, and why you should set up, in the middle of these, the words which I propose to omit I fail entirely to understand. The previous sections as to the way you get at the increment value are very complicated, and if you introduce these words and limit them to one occasion, you will create the greatest possible difficulty.
§ Sir W. ROBSONThe right hon. Gentleman argued before about the necessity of the words. Section (3) of Clause 3 says:—
"When the Increment Value Duty is collected……on any periodical occasion……such proportionate amount of the interest as is due shall be collected as may be determined by the Commissioners."
In Clause 6 the words really refer to what is described in section (3) of Clause 3. You are taking only a proportionate part, informing the corporation which is rendering its account that it must, in addition to the particulars given, described by the section of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885, calculate the value in accordance with section (3) of Clause 3.
§ Sir E. CARSONWill the Attorney-General agree, instead of these words, to the words of section (3) of Clause 3?
§ Sir W. ROBSONI think the words are good enough.
§ Sir E. CARSONNobody can tell what they refer to. I offer to withdraw my Amendment if the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept words in accordance with those of section (3) of Clause 3.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThe unfortunate property owner has to calculate in accordance with section (3) of Clause 3, while the Commissioners decision is arrived at by a purely arbitrary fiat. They cannot know beforehand what the Commissioners will do, and therefore they are calculating on a pure shot as to what the Commissioners may determine. I would ask the learned Attorney-General how they are to arrive at what is in the mind of the Commissioners?
§ Mr. STEWART BOWLESThe point raised does seem to me to be of very great 78 substance and importance. The learned Attorney-General says that the words my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) desires to strike out really mean that the amount which is to be rendered by a body corporate for the purpose of Increment Duty shall be the amount under the terms of section (3), Clause 3. That is to say, the amount setting forth not the total value of the lands, but the value of the increment for the purposes of taxation within the meaning of that section. As my hon. Friend (Mr. James Hope) pointed out by the terms of section (3), Clause 3, that amount is to be arrived at by the Commissioners according to rules. The obligation which the words proposed to impose not being an account of the total value does seem to me to be putting on an obligation which it will be totally impossible to perform, and it does seem to me to really make nonsense of this provision. I do not know whether the point has been considered, but I think the Government ought to give some account of what is the obligation they intend to put upon bodies corporate on these occasions.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWe must really press the Government for an answer on this matter.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThey are practically the same words as those dealing with the occasion of death in Clause 2, section (2), sub-section (c), "where the occasion is the death of any person, and the fee simple of the land…where any interest in the land is property passing on that death the value of the fee simple of the land calculated on the basis of the principal value of the interest as so ascertained." Those words are used in reference to the death of an individual, and we only use similar words as to corporations as to the period, otherwise the real danger is the whole of the fee simple might be charged, while we only want to charge on the interest.
§ Sir E. CARSONI really cannot accept the argument of the right hon. Gentleman. I am genuinely afraid that those words will be held to imply that you were doing something different from valuing the mere interest in the land. Anybody who reads section (3) of Clause 3 will see that this makes the matter extremely difficult, and I do not want to have it argued as I suggest.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEWe are both striving to attain the same object, and it 79 is purely a matter of drafting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has called our attention to these points, and if they would have such an effect of course we do not want them put in. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, having called our attention to the matter, will be satisfied when we promise to consider it carefully before the Report stage. We are still of opinion that it is necessary to have these words, but we promise to consider the matter.
§ Sir E. CARSONI am afraid I will have to accept that. I do not think it holds out any hope, nor do I think I have got any answer.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir E. CARSONmoved to leave out after the word "interest" ["in accordance with the value of the interest"] to the end of section (2). This raises a very important issue. Anybody might easily gloss over these words without seeing their great importance and the wide extension of taxation that you are making upon the present occasion. Personally, I should have preferred to raise this question under Clause 25, as there are exceptions in that clause. The section provides, "that section shall apply for the purposes of Increment Value Duty whether the body corporate or unincorporate are chargeable with duty under Part II. of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, or not." [The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the exemptions set forth in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885.] If anybody looks at the clause of the Customs Act of 1885 they will see that there are quite a number that are exempted. What I wish to point out is this: that the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1885, when it sought to levy taxes in lieu of Probate or Succession Duty upon corporate and unincorporate bodies, exempted every one of those particular classes of property which I have now enunciated. What the Committee want to have now clearly before them is, as to whether we are going to have these periodic valuations in the case of all those various classes, friendly societies, religious bodies, savings banks, and various other bodies such as insurance companies. That is a matter of very far-reaching importance, and I think it is time we had an explicit statement as to whether this is really sought to be meant, that when the Act passes every one of those voluntary societies and industrial societies are to 80 have their properties valued and returns made in regard to every little holding they may have and sent in to the Revenue Commissioners, and whether they are to be called upon every 15 years to have a revaluation of those properties. That raises a very large question. I am not at all sure that it ought not to be discussed in relation to the Bill as a whole, and not merely in relation to this question of periodic valuations. But the question is so very important, I fear, that now by passing these words we would be in effect passing an enactment to strike out, so far as these taxes are concerned, the various concessions and exemptions which I have read out from the Inland Revenue Act of 1885, and that we would be precluding ourselves afterwards from having any discussion whatsoever as regards the position industrial and friendly societies, savings banks and insurance companies are to have in relation to the land held by them once this Bill passes. I advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us plainly now whether it is intended that these matters should apply to those kind of companies and associations, because I think a good many people are of opinion that there is some doubt upon the question. The question can then be argued on the basis of the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think he will see it is an extremely important matter, which should be argued at the earliest moment.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI agree it is a very important matter, and I propose on behalf of the Government to deal with the position of those corporations and religious bodies. I was advised that the place to deal with those matters was Clause 25, and in order to safeguard the matter, and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want these words to be inserted as they might prejudice the question, then I would suggest to insert after the word "shall" the following: "subject to the provision of section 25 of this Act." That leaves it absolutely open to the Committee afterwards to discuss which of these corporations shall be excluded, because I agree that we ought to safeguard at any rate several of these corporations against being compelled to pay corporation Increment Duty. Therefore it ought to be open to the Committee to discuss the whole Question when we come to it.
§ Sir E. CARSONWould it not be better to insert the words "save as in this Act is hereinafter provided"?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think those words would be better, because for one reason the section may not be number 25.
§ Mr. ROBERT DUNCANIs there a distinct understanding that this shall apply to trade partnerships and industrial organisations?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think we had better not go into that question at present. All we are doing now is to safeguard the position so that we shall be able to discuss all these questions on Clause 25.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSIs it quite clear that under Clause 25, which exempts land held for public or charitable purposes only, we shall be able to include all the bodies referred to by my right hon. Friend? The Amendment is to exempt from the provisions of this section all the various bodies included in section 15 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, which include friendly societies and railway companies, and various other commericial undertakings. If it is perfectly clear that we shall be able at some future time to discuss the exclusion of all these bodies I shall be satisfied.
§ Sir WILLIAM ANSONI understand that the arrangement is not limited to the particular clause or the particular companies?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt is very probable that we may have to move a separate clause altogether; therefore it would be better to accept the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Carson), which would cover all cases, including railway companies.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir E. CARSONmoved, to insert after "value of the interest," the words "save as in this Act is hereinafter provided."
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. GEORGE CAVEMy next Amendment raises the very important question of appeals.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEBefore the hon. Member moves his Amendment, I have to make the same observation with regard to appeals as I made before. We propose to deal with the matter in another part of the Bill, and I trust that nothing will be done now to prejudge the discussion of the whole question on Clause 22. If the Amendment put on the Paper by the Go- 82 vernment does not go far enough, it will be quite open to hon. Gentlemen opposite to move any Amendment in respect of it.
§ Sir E. CARSONIf we pass this part of the Bill as it stands we shall at all events have negatived the idea of having such an appeal as is set out under the Customs Act, and that is the only appeal which we on this side are prepared to accept, namely, an appeal to the courts. If you now enact that those terms are not to apply, you will prevent our having an appeal to the courts afterwards. Therefore we really cannot pass this provision without Amendment, but that would not prevent the Government putting in an appeal applicable to all cases afterwards.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI understand that there is nothing to prevent our afterwards incorporating a provision for any form of appeal the House thinks necessary; but it would be an appeal not under the Customs Act, but under this Act, and it would be an appeal applicable not merely to one duty, but to all the duties. We want an appeal which will be applicable to every case under this Act, and although it may be identical in form with the appeal under the Customs Act, yet it will be an appeal under this Act, and not under the Customs Act. All I am asking the Committee is not to prejudge the question at present one way or the other. I trust that the appeal we shall suggest will be satisfactory to all sections of the House.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIt is very much to our interest not to take this discussion now, as there is obviously inadequate time to do justice to it. Clearly the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not contemplate its being taken now, when he urged that we should fix a time limit to the discussion of this clause, because he mentioned two other points as being the only ones of consequence. Therefore both sides are agreed that it would be convenient to take this discussion later on, if possible. But can you tell us, Sir, whether the discussion would be in order on Clause 22? That clause gives an appeal to referees, but what we want is an appeal rather from referees—from the Commissioners to the courts.
§ Mr. CAVEmoved, to leave out of section (3) the words "eighteen of subsection (1) of section (19), and of section." To put the matter in order, I will move my Amendment. I have a strong feeling that 83 if you accept the clause as it stands you do in terms exclude an appeal to the courts. An appeal to the courts is what we want, and before I withdraw the Amendment I want to be perfectly sure that we shall have a chance afterwards of moving something which will give us an appeal in this case, as in others, to the courts, and not to a referee.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI submit that even if these words are inserted there is nothing to preclude any Member from moving on Clause 22 that there shall be a direct appeal to the courts. All this clause declares is that there shall be no appeal under section 20 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act; but there will be nothing to prevent an Amendment being moved on Clause 22, giving an appeal direct to the courts under the provisions of this Act, and in such form and manner as this Act shall provide.
§ Mr. A. J. BALFOURThe precise point of order is this. I understand that it is the intention of Gentlemen on this side of the House to move an Amendment substantially identical with the clause in the Customs and Inland Revenue Act which it is now proposed to eliminate. The question is whether, although the appeal is precisely the same as in the clause you are going to eliminate, the fact that it is under a different Act enables you to get round a substantial identity of substance. In point of substance the two proposals are exactly alike. One is under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, and the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that we should repropose precisely the same article, but instead of baptising it "Customs and Inland Revenue" we should baptise it "this Act." The point is whether we can in that way get round what would apparently on the face of it be a preliminary decision of the Committee.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt cannot be quite identical, because, in section 22, it will apply to all the duties. Here it applies to only one, and I submit it is a totally different thing to put it in Clause 22, where it will be applicable to the whole of the duties. It might very reasonably be excluded here, because it is intended to have an appeal applicable to all the duties and not merely to one.
The CHAIRMANIn any decision I give it must be clearly understood that I 84 am not attempting to decide what might be a difficult point of law. As far as I understand the matter. I do not think that leaving the appeal sub-section here will prevent our putting in a provision dealing with appeals on Clause 22. It does not strike me (in the time I have been able to give to it) as saying that that appeal cannot be allowed. On the other hand, it seems to me to read that we are simply leaving that on one side for subsequent decision. As regards the point of order, that I can decide upon. I shall not refuse any Amendment on that point on Clause 22. But I cannot profess to say how the courts may deride the question eventually if these words are left in; that is not for me to decide at all. Does the hon. and learned Member wish to withdraw?
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put, "That Clause 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. CAVEIs it quite clear that a corporation holding land only as a mortgagee would not be subject to this duty? There is an enormous amount of land held by corporations on mortgage. I understand that when we come to the definition of owner care will be taken that the word "owner" shall not be deemed to include mortgagee. In this clause you have not got the word "owner" at all. You simply deal with property "held" by a corporation.
§ Sir W. ROBSONIf the mortgagee has foreclosed, then the mortgagee would assume all the liabilities attaching to the land. If he has not foreclosed, I do not think that would come within the definition of the word "owner."
§ Mr. CAVEThe point is this: In this clause you have not got the word "owner" at all. The duty is thrown not upon the owner of land, but upon the corporation which holds the land. That is the term, "Held by the corporation." Now, I should have thought it more than arguable that land held on mortgage by a corporation is land held by a corporation. Is it quite clear, or will it be made clear, in some other part of the Bill, that this duty will not be imposed upon the corporation, which is merely a mortgagee?
§ Mr. HALDANEAbout a fortnight ago a Committee agreed to the principle in- 85 volved, which is clear from the decision of the tribunals, that for the purpose of the Revenue Acts the mortgagee is simply ill the position of one holding a charge, and this whether it is a corporation or a private individual.
§ Sir EDWARD CARSONThe right hon. Gentleman did not hear the whole of the discussion. The point is there is no word about owner in this section. We admit he is not an owner. If he was the owner, I think we would agree on the application, but what is said is that the corporation should pay the tax, and it does not say anything about the owner. The question is whether the corporation is the owner of the land or whether the land is vested in it as a mortgagee.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDThe mortgagee may be in three positions with regard to property. He may be merely a mortgagee with interest paid, and the mortgagor in possession. In the next stage it may be the mortgagee is in possession, but that he has not foreclosed. There are a great many cases where the mortgagee is merely in possession of property, owned, at any rate, on the part of the mortgagor who pays interest or something of that sort, but in such a case the mortgagee has not foreclosed or become the owner of the property so as to render himself liable to any of the incidence of ownership. If you have the word "owner" in this Bill it would be fairly clear as to which category we were referring to. Take the case of a friendly society. Take, for instance, the case of the Liver Friendly Society, which has got some thousands of mortgages. There are plenty of cases where the society has been obliged to foreclose, and there are a good many where the Liver is in possession, and a great many more where they are not in possesssion at all. It would be interesting to know whether the land held by the Liver Society, as it has been distinctly conveyed by way of mortgage.
§ Mr. HALDANEIf you look at the group of sections I think you will find you are dealing right through with ownership. If you look at the beginning of Claue 4 it is ownership; Clause 5 it is ownership; in Clause 6 you are dealing with a body corporate, and it is varied in that case because a corporation never dies apart from this. The Corporation is on the same footing as to the definition of ownership as anybody else. It is quite clear that that being so, whether it is land, or interest in 86 land, the land must be held as an owner by the corporation before the tax can attach.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINInterpretations of these matters, as given by learned Members of this House, are, I confess, a constant puzzle to laymen. They seem to have an infinite variety, an infinite elasticity, according to the needs of the lawyer who is speaking at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman says that in Clause 4 you are dealing expressly with the owners of land. In the next clause, you are dealing expressly, by terms, again with the owners of land. In the next clause the owners of land are nowhere mentioned; therefore the courts will know you mean the owners of land, because they have been mentioned in the two preceding sections On any other occasion where a layman has attempted to put forward an Amendment open to such an objection as that, I have never heard a lawyer spare him a castigation that he deserved.
§ Mr. HALDANEindicated dissent.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI would just like to call attention to rather a different point. Among the sections incorporated by section (3) is section 14 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, which we have been discussing. Now, that section 14 says, "that the old Corporation Duty shall be a first charge on all property in respect whereof the same shall be paid." That is to say, it has to come in front of encumbrances. Therefore, the effect will be to make the Increment Duty come in front of all encumbrances in all property; at any rate, in the case of corporations. The strongest objection is taken to that. I have had a remonstrance from the Sheffield Law Society against allowing this duty to come in front of existing encumbrances. It is felt that the position of the mortgagees will be very serious. The margin of the mortgagees will be, if held by anyone other than the individual, very seriously affected by this incorporating section which brings in section 14 of the earlier Act.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORDIt was in order to make the point clear that I ventured to put this Amendment down. The matter is being left in a very unsatisfactory state.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 98.
89| Division No. 314.] | AYES. | [7.15 p.m. |
| Abraham, W. (Cork, N.E.) | Gladstone, Rt. Hon. Herbert John | Murphy, John (Kerry, E.) |
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. (Kincard.) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Glover, Thomas | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Agnew, George William | Grant, Corrie | Napier, T. B. |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Nicholls, George |
| Alden, Percy | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Nolan, Joseph |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Astbury, John Meir | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Nugent, Sir Walter Richard |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Nussey, Sir Willans |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon, L. (Rossendale) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) |
| Barker, Sir John | Hart-Davies, T. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Haworth, Arthur A. | O'Dowd, John |
| Barnes, G. N. | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Hazleton, Richard | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Hedges, A. Paget | O'Malley, William |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Helme, Nerval Watson | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Hemmerde, Edward George | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Berridge, T. H. D | Henry, Charles S. | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romford) | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon. S.) | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Higham, John Sharp | Philips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Hobart, Sir Robert | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hogan, Michael | Pollard, Dr G. H. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Holland, Sir William Henry | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Horniman, Emslie John | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hon. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hudson, Walter | Radford, G. H. |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Hutton, Alfred Eddison | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (Gloucester) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Hyde, Clarendon G. | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Idris, T. H. W. | Reddy, M. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney Charles | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Joyce, Michael | Richards, Thomas (W. Monmouth) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Kavanagh, Walter M. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverhampton, W.) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Chance, Frederick William | Laidlaw, Robert | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Lambert, George | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cleland, J. W. | Layland-Barrett, Sir Francis | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Clough, William | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington) | Rowlands, J. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lehmann, R. C. | Rutherlord, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Scarlsbrick, Sir T. T. L. |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinstead) | Lundon, T. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Sears, J. E. |
| Cross, Alexander | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Shackleton, David James |
| Dalziel, Sir James Henry | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Sheehy, David |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Macpherson, J. T. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Snowden, P. |
| Delany, William | MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | M'Kean, John | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Stanley, Hon. A. Lyulph (Cheshire) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Donelan, Captain A. | M'Micking, Major G. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Maddison, Frederick | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall) | Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Marnham, F. J. | Summerbell, T. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Evans, Sir S. T. | Massie, J. | Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth) |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Masterman, C. F. G. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Meagher, Michael | Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Menzies, Sir Walter | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Micklem, Nathaniel | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Flynn, James Christopher | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.) |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Mooney, J. J. | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Fuller, John Michael F. | Morrell, Philip | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Morse, L. L. | Tomkinson, James |
| Gibb, James (Harrow) | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Toulmin, George |
| Vivian, Henry | White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire) | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Walsh, Stephen | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Walton, Joseph | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) | Winfrey, R. |
| Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wiles, Thomas | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) | |
| Waterlow, D. S. | Williams, W. Llewelyn (Carmarthen) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Joseph Pease and Captain Norton. |
| Watt, Henry A. | Williamson, Sir A. | |
| Wedgwood, Josiah C. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.) |
| NOES. | ||
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Fell, Arthur | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Foster, P. S. | Newdegate, F. A. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.) | Gardner, Ernest | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Guinness, Hon. R. (Haggerston) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Haddock, George B. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hamilton, Marquess of | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Renton, Leslie |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Burdett-Coutts, W. | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Hill, Sir Clement | Rutherford, Watson (Liverpool) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hills, J. W. | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hunt, Rowland | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D. |
| Cave, George | Joynson-Hicks, William | Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, E.) |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kerry, Earl of | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Keswick, William | Stanier, Beville |
| Clive, Percy Archer | Kimber, Sir Henry | Starkey, John R. |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Talbot, Rt. Hon. J. G. (Oxford Univ.) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H. A. E. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent Mid) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Dairymple, Viscount | Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott- | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Winterton, Earl |
| Doughty, Sir George | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan) | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | |
| Faber, George Denlson (York) | M'Arthur, Charles | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir |
| Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.) | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | A. Acland-Hood and Viscount |
| Fardell, Sir T. George | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Valentia. |