§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state upon what dates during the present year Mr. Morgan, tax assessor, Pontypridd, visited Mountain Ash in connection with his duties as Income Tax assessor, the address of his office or place of call in Mountain Ash, and the number of disputed claims adjusted by him at Mountain Ash; and whether, as each visit paid to Mr. Morgan at Pontypridd under compulsion and threats by him involves the loss of a day's wages by workpeople and of loss and inconvenience by business people, he will instruct Mr. Morgan to visit Mountain Ash and see objectors there at a time and place which would put them to least inconvenience?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse)I am informed that Mr. Morgan has visited Mountain Ash during this year about a dozen times in connection with his duties, namely, on January 31st, February 7th, 10th, 14th, 21st, 28th, March 7th, 14th, 21st, 28th, and April 4th, and also on other dates of which no exact identification is now possible and also that a considerable number of claims have been settled by him there. In order to further meet the convenience of the taxpayers, Mr. Morgan, who is both assessor and collector, 1335 holding his office not from the Board of Inland Revenue, but from the District Commissioners of Taxes for the locality, will be provided with an office in Mountain Ash as from the end of May next.
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked what was the amount of Income Tax collected in the first eight days of April, 1896, and April, 1906?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIf by the term "collected" the hon. Baronet means paid into the Exchequer, and by the term "first eight days" the first eight working days, then the figures, though not strictly comparable in all respects, are as follows:—
| 1896. | 1906. |
| £1,122,000 | £1,725,000 |
§ The rate of Income Tax being 8d. and 1s. in the respective years.
§ Sir F. BANBURYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would state on what principle the eight railway companies who were asked to defer payment of Income Tax were selected?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe eight railway companies referred to were approached, as being the largest and most important companies, and therefore the largest payers of tax, which, as I have repeatedly explained to the House, was intended to be collected on the 30th of March.
§ Sir F. BANBURYMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the North Eastern Railway Company, which is a very much larger company than the majority of the other companies, was not approached.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEMy recollection is, although I cannot say off-hand with certainty, that the North Eastern has not got its head office in London.
§ Sir F. BANBURYWhy is it necessary to expedite the collection of Income! Tax from railway companies because they have their offices in London?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAn official of the Inland Revenue can visit the head office of a railway company in London, but he cannot do so if the head office is in York.
§ Sir F. BANBURYCould he not write a letter?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSECertainly. I believe I that is one of the requisitions of the Civil Service Commissioners?
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDWhy were these railway companies asked to pay on the 30th of March instead of on the 20th or before then?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI do not think the hon. Gentleman was in the House when, at the end of last week, I explained the matter, and stated that we were following a practice which has obtained for a considerable number of years past.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that he stated on a previous occasion that the tax was not due until a date subsequent to the 20th of March, and whether in the Income Tax Act the case is not distinctly the opposite, and that the tax is due on or before that date?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI am not aware of it.
§ Mr. STEEL-MAITLANDWill the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Official Report?
§ Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked what was the amount of Income Tax standing to the credit of the Commissioners or collectors on various accounts a I the Bank of England on 31st March last but not transferred to the credit of the Treasury: and at what date these sums were so transferred.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Commissioners of Inland Revenue have no separate accounts at the Bank of England for the several Duties under their management; but their Departmental Cash Book showed in respect of Income Tax a cash balance of £148,000 on the morning of the 31st March and of £164,000 on the morning of the following day. Round sums of £160,000 were transferred on Income Tax Account to the Exchequer on each of those two days. I have no knowledge of the amount of Income Tax standing on the 31st of March to the credit of collectors of Income Tax?
§ Captain TRYONasked whether collectors of Income Tax in Brighton and other towns of between 100,000 and 200,000 inhabitants are paid at fixed rates or by poundage; whether the payment of collectors in the whole of England is on an uniform basis; and whether the whole salaries are paid at regular stated intervals like other offices of the Civil Service?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe rates of payment to collectors are regulated by the provisions of 54 and 55 Vic, cap. 13, sec. 4, which are applicable to collectors referred 1337 to as well as all other collectors in England. Payment of the remuneration is made in periodical instalments at varying dates according to the progress which the individual collector has made towards the completion of his yearly duties. Remuneration is to be prescribed by the Inland Revenue with the assent of the Treasury, but not less than that paid in 1890.
§ Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONasked whether the Board of Inland Revenue claims that under the statute local Inland Revenue Commissioners, in making retrospective assessments, are bound to assess all incomes at the full rate, without abatement for earnings within the limit; and, if so, seeing that this construction of the law puts a premium upon official negligence or dilatoriness in the issue of notices, inasmuch as the Revenue in such cases profits by all delays beyond the statutory date for appeal, whether the Government would undertake legislation empowering Commissioners to make retrospective assessments on the same principles as others?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEWhere a claim for relief in respect of the "Earned Rate" of Income Tax has not been made before the 30th September in the year for which the tax is charged, Income Tax at the full rate is chargeable. The obligation to claim is on the taxpayers, and I do not see my way to propose legislation in the matter.
§ Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONIs there not negligence in sending out these notices. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are cases where the omission has occurred two years running?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have been in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman as to a particular case, but I do not think I can admit there is negligence to the extent suggested.
§ Mr. J. M. ROBERTSONBut are there not cases of omission for two years running?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI can only say the Inland Revenue officials are required to act under the terms of the statute.
§ Mr. MILLSasked the amount of Income Tax, exclusive of Super-tax, collected during the first eight days of April in each of the following years, 1907, 1908, 1909, and 1910?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs regards 1908, 1909, and 1910, I beg to refer to my reply to the 1338 hon. Member for Great Yarmouth on 12th instant. The corresponding figure for 1907 is £2,420,000.
Captain CRAIGasked whether surveyors of taxes are in order in issuing notices demanding returns of income for Income Tax purposes, seeing that no Income Tax is in existence for the year 1911–12 in the absence of a Budget, or whether their action is due to another misunderstanding?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe authority for the action taken is contained in Section 30 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1890.
Captain CRAIGDo I understand that there is a penalty attached to any person refusing to return his income until the Bill is actually passed?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIf the hon. Gentleman likes to make the experiment he will see what the result will be.