§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state upon what date he proposes, in conformity with his promise, to furnish the names and addresses of all persons, companies, and firms who have, during the month of March, been called upon or otherwise communicated with by any officer of the Inland Revenue with a view to the postponement of the payment of Income Tax until after the 31st day of March, 1911?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have already, in reply to a question the day before yesterday, furnished the names of all the companies upon whom an official of the Inland Revenue called. No other companies were, so far as I can ascertain, communicated with, and I have therefore no further information to give.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSDoes that apply to persons and firms?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSESo far as I am aware there are no persons or firms. I used the description "companies" in the largest possible sense.
§ Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked whether it is proposed to extend to small Income Tax payers the extension of time for payment which has already been given to railway companies and other large contributors to the Income Tax; and, if not, whether he can state the reason for discriminating between two classes of taxpayers?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo extension of time has been given either to railway or other large companies. Certain railway companies were asked to pay the tax due within three weeks of it becoming due, and no individual Income Tax payer has been given less than that time in which to pay any tax due.
Mr. LAWSONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was unusual pressure put in certain districts upon small Income Tax payers?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo, Sir; I am not aware of that fact. If the hon. Member will give me any information I shall have inquiries made.
§ Mr. WILLIAM PEELasked what were the instructions given by the chairman of the Board to the official of the Inland Revenue which he is stated to have misunderstood, and were they given verbally or in writing; and, if in writing, will he lay them upon the Table of the House?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI beg to refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London on the 3rd instant. The instructions were given orally.
§ Mr. PEELWill the right hon. Gentleman state what were the instructions, in order that the House may have an opportunity of judging how far they were misunderstood by the person to whom they were given?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIt is a little difficult to explain to the House how the official misunderstood his orders. The instructions, as I understand given orally were, that payments due by these companies should be paid on or by the 30th March. For some reason or other the official misunderstood that, and chose to construe that as meaning April.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSENo, Sir; because it was never for a moment supposed they would be misunderstood. Therefore there is no necessity of keeping such record.
§ Lord BALCARRESI should like to know why should it be necessary to give instructions at all that the eight railway companies in question should pay their taxes at the statutory time?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs I understand, it has been the practice for a very considerable period in the particular case of the railway companies—which, as I explained to the House, are governed by special laws—to ask them to pay upon such and such a date. We were merely following the usual practice.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIs it not a fact that under the law railway companies have to pay the last moiety of their Income Tax by 30th March, and is it not a fact that they have always paid on that date, or 1026 within a few days of that date; and, if so, what was the necessity of going round and asking them to pay by the 30th March?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI do not know whether that is the law. I did not know hon. Members were going to ask me these questions of detail. It is the case that railway companies are bound to pay their tax at some date subsequent to 20th March. It is obvious if their payments are to be included in the financial year, they must be paid within a few days of that date. The year comes to an end eleven days after that date, and, as I explained to the House, in asking them to pay on 30th March, we are merely following the usual practice.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs I have already several times explained to the House, it was one official.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWhen and how did the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue find his instructions were misunderstood—
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe first I learned of it, and I believe the first news the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue had of it, was the question put to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London.
Mr. NEWDEGATEasked whether instructions were given to the collectors of taxes in Birmingham to postpone the collection of the Property Tax, although the payment of that tax is due in January; whether, on this delay being pointed out to taxation officials by persons liable to pay this tax, the reply has been given that the matter will be attended to; whether it is the case that this tax has not yet been collected in Birmingham; and whether similar delaying orders have been given to tax collectors in other parts of the country?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI am not aware that any instructions in the sense indicated have been given to collectors of taxes in Birmingham or elsewhere; but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of a specific case, I will cause inquiry to be made.