§ Sir JOHN RANDLESasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer could he now state the result of his inquiry for advice to the Law Officers as to whether persons who had paid Income Tax during the last few months in the mistaken belief that the Government would carry through the Budget, and so legalise the tax before 31st March, would have their payments refunded, should they so wish, on making application to the Inland Revenue officers; and, in the event of Income Tax not being refunded, would interest be paid thereon at the rate of 2½ per cent, for the period such tax had been deposited pending the decision of Parliament as to the imposition of a tax on income?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have not yet received the Law Officers' opinion upon the point.
§ Sir J. RANDLESIn view of the fact that I have asked this question week after week for some weeks, can the right hon. Gentleman say if he is likely to receive this reply before the ecclesiastical Easter, or not?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEMy learned Friend is not here, but I shall ask the question later on. I can assure the hon. Member that I am just as anxious as he is to get their opinion about this matter; it is very important for administrative purposes.
§ Lord HUGH CECILCan the right hon. Gentleman say how long the matter has been under consideration?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe hon. Gentleman opposite may remember when the question was put—about a week ago, I think.
§ Mr. CROFTasked whether any means exist for recovering Income Tax from the estates of persons who have died or emigrated since 6th April, 1909, and who have not paid the tax?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI am not aware that the circumstances of the present financial year will ultimately affect the question of recovering tax in cases of the character referred to.
§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked whether demand notes for Income Tax under Schedule D on profits directly assessed by the Special Commissioners have yet been issued; and, if not, whether he can state the reason for the delay?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEPrior to 2nd December, 1909, the usual "Notice of Assessments" for Income Tax under Schedule D, on profits directly assessed by the Special Commissioners, were issued in the ordinary course. Those notices contain instructions as to the mode of payment. Since that date, in view of the rejection of the Finance Bill by the House of Lords, no such notices, nor any applications in the nature of "demand notes," have been issued.
§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that in certain cases no such intimation has been made to the taxpayer as his answer indicates, and that in these cases the taxpayer does not even know whether his return for assessment has been accepted or not?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is not the question put. The question put is: "Whether demand notes for Income Tax under Schedule D, on profits directly assessed by the Special Commissioners, 751 have yet been issued?" I told him they were issued prior to 2nd December, which was the date of the rejection of the Finance Bill. Since that date they have not been issued.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Scotland demand notes were issued as late as 20th December?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEBy the Special Commissioners?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI did not say by the Special Commissioners.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is the point. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the question. The local Commissioners are not under the control of the Inland Revenue; they act on their own initiative. But the hon. Gentleman's question has reference to the Special Commissioners, who are under the control of the Inland Revenue, and I say that no demand notes have been issued by them since the rejection of the Finance Bill.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes the right hon. Gentleman say that where the Treasury exercises control no demand for Income Tax has been made since the rejection of the Finance Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat is my information.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI shall have to refer to the matter in Debate.
§ Lord HUGH CECILIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Income Tax is deducted from money paid to officers in the Army and in the Navy, and also in the case of Civil servants?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have already answered that question several times in House.
§ Lord HUGH CECILDoes the right hon. Gentleman think he need only answer such questions as are convenient? What distinction does he draw between the case of an officer or public servant, and a case in which a demand is made?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAs to answering only questions which are convenient to me, I answered the first question of the Noble Lord a week ago. As to the second part, that is entirely a matter for argument. I do not agree with the Noble Lord. I have already given my view to the House, 752 but I understand there is to be a discussion on the subject, and I can assure the Noble Lord the Government will not shirk giving an answer.
§ Mr. HARRY SEYMOUR FOSTERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that in the City of London demand notes had been sent out in the usual course for the payment of Income Tax on the basis of the late Finance Bill; whether the collectors had paid to the Income Tax Commissioners for the City the sums so collected; what was the amount so collected up to 10th March last, or to any earlier date to which the figures were available; whether such sums in due course had been paid to the credit of the Treasury at the Bank of England; if not, would he state why such sums had not been paid over; and whether any communications had passed between the Treasury and the Income Tax Commissioners upon the subject?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEYes, Sir, I understand that, in the exercise of their discretion, the commissioners of taxes for the City of London have authorised the issue of demand notes by their collectors. From 1st January to 25th February the amount of Income Tax so collected and paid over to the Exchequer was £1,790,461. Since the latter date no further payment on account of Income Tax has been made by the City Commissioners, who are acting upon their own responsibility in the matter. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. HARRY SEYMOUR FOSTERasked whether the joint stock banks in the City of London had sent to the Treasury their usual quarterly returns of the amounts they held for payment to the Government in respect of Income Tax; what was the amount of money so collected and held by the said banks; had any request been made by the Treasury officials for the payment of such sums to them; and had any, and what, communications taken place between the Treasury and the banks upon the subject?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe usual quarterly returns have been sent to the Board of Inland Revenue. The sums still in the hands of these banks, according to returns made up to the 5th instant, amount to £833,000. No requests for payment have been made by the Inland Revenue since the 30th November last, nor has any correspondence passed between the banks and that Department.
§ Mr. H. S. FOSTERHas the right hon. Gentleman communicated to the banks his statement of 4th March that he would gladly welcome the receipt of every penny sent in?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not know, without reference to the correspondence, whether there has been any communication on the point by writing, but, at any rate, the statement is public information.
An HON. MEMBERIs it a fact that the Treasury has given an indemnity at a date later than 30th November in regard to the deduction of Income Tax in the manner adopted in former years?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not know what sort of indemnity the hon. Member means.
§ Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the City, within the last few days, the collectors of Income Tax have called on and informed several of the banks that they would receive the Income Tax if the banks volunteered to pay it.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThat confirms my previous answers. The collectors are acting on their own responsibility. They are not under the direction of the Inland Revenue. They are under the local commissioners.
§ Lord HUGH CECILHave there been any communications between the Treasury and the banks in relation to the liability of the latter in connection with the collection of the Income Tax?
§ Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYMay I say, in reply to the Noble Lord—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must wait until he gets to the other side of the House before he answers questions.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked whether the Inland Revenue authorities had made refunds to individuals on account of Income Tax deducted from the dividends of those individuals, although the tax itself had not been handed over to the Exchequer.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposed to repay hospitals and other approved charities amounts which they has paid as Income Tax, or must those institutions suffer the loss under the present financial arrangements of the Government?
§ Mr. MILDMAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what course he proposed to adopt in the case of those individuals who, by reason of their incomes not exceeding a certain amount, were entitled to claim return of Income Tax in April, such having already been deducted from dividends on the full scale by banks, etc.?
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked what would be the position in regard to rebate on Income Tax of persons having incomes of less than £400 derivable from dividends which fell due between the 6th April, 1909, and the 5th April, 1910, and from which Income Tax had been deducted by banks but not received by His Majesty's Exchequer; whether, in respect of the year 6th April, 1909, to 5th April, 1910, such persons would be entitled to claim rebate on the 5th April, 1910; whether claims to rebate in such circumstances would be paid; and whether the rebate would be paid as in the past within a few days of the receipt of the claim?
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINIn putting my question, may I express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have had to come back from a holiday which I am sure he needed?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtsey in postponing his question until to-day. The Board of Inland Revenue have, in a few cases, made refund on account of Income Tax deducted from the dividends of individuals entitled to claim such refund, although the tax itself has not been paid into the Exchequer. I may add that I have authorised the Board to follow the normal practice in regard to repayment of Income Tax in all cases where claims can be substantiated.
§ Mr. BOYTONasked whether Income Tax is being deducted from all due payment of salaries to the members of the Civil Service and other services of the State?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 10th inst. to the hon. Member for Worcester. I may add that I have received no complaints on the subject from Civil servants.
§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERasked whether in many instances firms who proposed to withdraw spirits from bond since December last at the legal duty of 11s. per gallon were called upon to provide security in the form of bonds to the Commis- 755 sioners of Customs and Excise sufficient to cover the amount of the extra duty of 3s. 9d. per gallon estimated to be due at the end of three months, namely, at or about the time at which the Government had undertaken to reintroduce the Budget in the House of Commons?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe security which is required by law to be given for all bonded warehouses has been increased in a few cases where spirits have been delivered upon payment of the duty of 11s. per gallon, and the additional duty of 3s. 9d. under the Budget Resolution has not been deposited. The increase has only been asked for where the quantity of spirits so delivered and the amount of the duty which will ultimately become payable in respect of them has been so considerable that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise have felt that the security already given was insufficient, but in no case has the increase been estimated by reference to the amount which may be due at the end of three months or at any particular date.
§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERIs the right hon. Gentleman entitled to call a payment of that kind, made under such circumstances, a voluntary contribution?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThey need not make it unless they like.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWith reference to the statement that increased security has been required only where the previous security was insufficient, does the insufficiency refer to the legal duty or to the duty which the Government hope some day to induce this House to legalise?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI think it has reference rather to the nature and the quantity of the transactions between the person who pays the duty and the Inland Revenue.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINMust it not have reference to whether the duty is calculated at the rate of 11s. or at the rate of 14s. 9d.?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEAs I understand from the Inland Eevenue—but I should like to confirm this—it refers rather to the 11s. rate than to the 14s. 9d. rate, because it is undoubtedly a purely voluntary contribution on their part of the traders. That has been the attitude of His Majesty's Government, and I must say that in the vast majority of cases it has been done without any difficulty at all.
§ Mr. GEORGE YOUNGERIs not the right hon. Gentleman perfectly aware that these bonding arrangements are more or less permanent in their character, and that the extra security, although not stated so in terms, is distinctly in consequence of the additional 3s. 9d. duty?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not think so. Where the trade treat the 14s. 9d. as a duty which it is prepared to pay—and that is the position at the present moment —in the transactions between the Inland Revenue and the trade the amount is probably computed on the 14s. 9d. basis. But it is purely by voluntary arrangement—an arrangement which the traders have accepted.
§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Finance Bill will be introduced for the purpose of giving legal effect to those Resolutions dealing with the financial year 1909–10 which the Government have stated will be moved after Easter; whether it will be introduced before the Spring Recess; and whether there will be two Financial Bills, one having reference to the financial year 1909–10 and the other to that of 1910–11.
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI must ask the hon. Member to wait for the answer which will be given to similar questions by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked how much of the estimated loss of revenue of the present financial year, placed at £28,500,000, and stated to be due to the rejection of the Finance Bill, would have been saved if a temporary Bill had been passed before the dissolution, authorising the collection of Income Tax at the rates specified in the tax, and at the rates specified in the Finance Act of 1908, at the rates specified in the Finance Bill of 1909, including the Super-tax, and at the rate specified in the Finance Bill of 1909, without the Super-tax, respectively; and what, would have been the estimated saving of loss at each of the above-mentioned rates if a Resolution authorising the imposition and collection of Income Tax had been adopted immediately after the conclusion of the Debate on the Address?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI must refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 14th instant to similar questions by the hon. Members for the Woodstock Division and for Falmouth.
§ Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total estimated yield from additional taxation in 1910–11 and in future years imposed upon Ireland by the Finance Bill, 1909, and what was the estimated yield from each tax?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIt would be contrary to precedent for me at this period of the year to anticipate my financial statement by giving estimates of revenue for 1910–11 and subsequent years, and I cannot, therefore, see my way to add to the information which I have already given in regard to the incidence on Ireland of the additional taxation imposed by the Budget of last year.
§ Mr. LONSDALEDoes the right hon. Gentleman propose to make such changes in the Budget in reference to its application to Ireland as will have a favourable effect?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEIn the first place, that does not at all arise out of the question. The hon. Gentleman again asks me to anticipate my statement—a course which no Chancellor of the Exchequer has ever been asked to do before.
§ Mr. LONSDALEasked what are the taxes, and what is the yield from each tax, comprised in the Treasury estimate of £438,000 as the total Irish contribution in 1909–10 to the revenue as a result of the additional taxation imposed upon Ireland by the Finance Bill, 1909?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe figure of £438,000 quoted in the question represents, as I explained in the reply I gave to the questions asked me on this subject on the 9th instant, not the Irish contribution to the revenue to be collected in 1909–10, but the Irish contribution to the revenue proper to the year of which, however, a portion (approximately £173,000), will not be received until after 31st March owing to the delay in passing the Finance Bill. The details of the calculation are the same as those given in the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury to a question addressed to him by the hon. Member for North Galway on 27th October last with the omission of the items for spirits (£80,000) and stamps (£17,000). The reasons for these variations are that it is now apparent that the yield of the increased rates of Spirit Duties will be less than the yield of the duties upon the former basis, while the higher rates of Stamp Duties only beome operative as 758 from the day on which the Finance Bill receives the Royal Assent.
§ Mr. LONSDALEHow much does the right hon. Gentleman hope to realise by the Stamp Duties in relation to Ireland?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI have told the hon. Gentleman that we will not realise a penny this year from the Stamp Duties because they are not in operation.
§ Mr. LONSDALEWill they ever be in operation?
§ Mr. HAYES FISHERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state the approximate amount which local authorities may expect to receive in the financial year 1910–11 as their moiety of the duties on land values under the proposals of the Finance Bill, 1909; if he could state whether His Majesty's Government had arrived at any decision as to the basis on which the allocation of this amount between the various local authorities should be made; and, if so, what amount was likely to be received by the London County Council during the year 1910–11?
The HON. MEMBERfurther asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he could state approximately the amount by which the revenues of local authorities for the financial year 1909–10, arising from the Surtax of 6d. per gallon on spirits under the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890, would be diminished as compared with the year 1908–9, and how much of such loss of revenue would fall upon the London County Council; and whether, seeing that the whole or greater part of such loss of revenue was the result of the increased rate of duty proposed for the purposes of the Imperial Exchequer by the Finance Bill of 1909, and would have to be made good out of the local rates. His Majesty's Government would consider as to applying to such revenue a similar provision to that contained in Clause 88 of the Finance Bill, 1909, by which local authorities were protected from loss of revenue from the duties on liquor licences caused by an increase in the rate of duty for imperial purposes?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEI do not think it is desirable to anticipate my financial statement by giving the information asked for in either of these questions. As regards the latter part of question 31, I do not in any way accept the hon. Member's contention that any loss of revenue under this head to local authorities would necessarily 759 be the result of the increased rate of duty on spirits, but I shall be glad to give the matter my sympathetic consideration when I come to deal with the financial arrangements of the coming year. At the same time, it would be premature for me to commit myself in advance to any particular solution of the difficulty such as that suggested by the hon. Member.
§ Lord HUGH CECILCan the right hon. Gentleman say when, approximately, he will make his financial statement?
§ Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEThe Noble Lord really ought to know that that is a question which should be addressed to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDasked the Prime Minister whether it was the intention of the Government that the Finance Bill should be passed through all its stages in this House before the Spring Recess; and whether the intention of the Government to obtain the consent of this House to the Finance Bill was contingent on anything that may happen elsewhere?
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Prime Minister if he will state when His Majesty's Government intend to introduce the Finance Bill for 1910–11; and whether, in view of the fact that it is not their intention to introduce the Finance Bill of 1909–10 until after the expiration of the financial year 1909–10, His Majesty's Government contemplate introducing one Finance Bill for the two years?
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce more than one Finance Bill during the present Session?
§ Lord HUGH CECILasked whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Finance Bill before the Spring Recess or at any time during the present Session; and, if so, whether that Bill will contain any, and, if so, which, of the provisions of the Finance Bill, 1909?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith)As I have already stated more than once, it is the hope and intention of the Government to pass the Budget of 1909–10, which, of course, must be embodied in a Bill, through this House before the Spring Recess, and that intention is not contingent on what may happen elsewhere. The method of procedure which we shall propose for securing that purpose "will be 760 indicated in due time. There will not, according to our present intention, be a single Finance Bill for the two years. In reply to the last part of the question of the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford I cannot at this stage make any detailed statement such as is asked.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHMay I ask if this is one of the tactical and strategical steps the right hon. Gentleman alluded to on Saturday?