§ Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the regulations made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1909–10, provide that an instrument presented for stamping under that Section must be accompanied either by a copy or by an abstract of the instrument, and by a copy of any plan therein contained or referred to: and, if so, whether it is considered that the power given by the Section to the Commissioners to make regulations as to the mode in which an instrument is to be presented to them for stamping authorises them to require the instrument to be accompanied by further documents involving trouble and expense to the taxpayer.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part of the question is also in the affirmative. I may add that the further documents required to be lodged with the instrument are necessary for the purpose of enabling the Commissioners to assess Increment Value Duty.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI beg to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I shall raise this matter to-morrow on the Third Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
§ Mr. RENDALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the ruling of the Comptroller of Stamps Office to the effect that where a contract for the sale of property has been entered into before the commencement of the Finance Act, 1910, there is no provision under Section 4 of the Act for impressing a stamp signifying that no Increment Duty is payable; whether, having regard to the fact that many conveyances of such property have been and will be dated subsequently to the commencement of the Finance Act, 1910, in which the contract being unrecited there will remain an open question as to whether Increment Duty was or was not due, thereby causing uncertainty and expense in future dealings with the property by necessitating the production of the original contract; and whether, having regard to these considerations, he will consider the desirability of providing that the stamp provided for by Section 4, Sub-section 3 (c) or some other stamp should be impressed in these cases?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe difficulty to which my hon. Friend refers has been brought to my notice. It is, however, merely a temporary one, a remedy for which appears to lie in the insertion in the deed of conveyance of a reference to the date of the contract, in pursuance of which the deed is executed; and it appears neither necessary nor desirable to provide for impressing a stamp in these cases as suggested.