HC Deb 13 April 1910 vol 16 cc1242-4
Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the desire of the Exchequer that; all possible steps should be taken to facilitate the voluntary collection of the Income Tax for the financial year 1909–10, he will say whether the circular to local commissioners, suggesting to them that the sending out of demand notes should not be proceeded with, was issued by his instructions?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

If, as I presume, the hon. Member refers to the circular issued to the clerks to local Commissioners on 4th December last, the answer is in the affirmative.

Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the result of the case of Guest, Keen, and Nettlefold v. Fowler decided by Mr. Justice Bray in the King's Bench Division, whereby the expense of maintaining an association for the purpose of increasing and earning profits was decided to be an expense properly incurred and chargeable as such before ascertaining the amount of profit assessable under Schedule D, and to the fact that the Board of Inland Revenue have hitherto insisted that such expenses should be included among profits assessable to Income Tax, and that in many cases Income Tax has actually been paid an assessments calculated on this basis, whether he will issue instructions to have the tax on all sums so assessed returned to the taxpayer upon application either through the surveyor or the Board of Inland Revenue.

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

Where the taxpayer has taken the requisite steps as provided by law the tax would be refunded; but in cases where steps were not so taken no refund can be made. Effect will be given to the judgment of the court as regards future assessments.

Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND

Will the refundment be made in cases where the tax has been paid for more than three years previously, and where subsequent steps have been taken for refundment?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I should like notice of that question.

Mr. STEEL-MAITLAND

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having regard to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Smith v. The Lion Brewery deciding that the compensation levy under the Compensation Act, 1904, is properly chargeable as a working expense before assessing the profits of brewers under Schedule D, and to the fact that, the Income Tax Commissioners and the Inland Revenue Commissioners, through the action of their surveyors, and particularly through the action of their members sitting as Special Income Tax Commissioners, have hitherto insisted upon assessing such compensation levy as if it were profit, whether he will now issue instructions that the tax on the amount of compensation levy so assessed will be returned to all parties by whom it has been paid?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

The case referred to is under appeal to the House of Lords.

Mr. FELL

asked under what power or authority Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 2d. in the pound is being deducted from salaries and dividends since the 6th day of April, seeing that under the Income Tax Resolution for the Budget of 1909–10 the Income Tax was only purported to be fixed at that rate for the year beginning 6th April, 1909, and the authority expired on the 6th instant?

Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE

I may remind the hon. Member that the practice of deducting Income Tax during the interval between the 5th April and the date of the Resolution of this House imposing the tax for the year is observed in every year when the Resolution is taken later than the 5th April, and there is no reason for any departure from it for the current year.