§ Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the usual period that is allowed to elapse between the receipt of a notice to appeal, under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and the appointment of a referee by the Land Values Reference Committee; and whether, in some cases, over six months has been allowed to pass without the appointment of a referee, and, if so, what is the reason for delay?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe period that is allowed to elapse between the receipt of a notice to appeal and the appointment of a referee by the Land Values Reference Committee varies considerably, and in some cases over six months have been allowed to pass without this appointment being made. The delay in such cases has been due to attempts either to arrive at an agreement without recourse to a referee or to avoid the trouble and expense of a multiplicity of appeals involving the same point.
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay I ask whether he is aware that the impression prevails amongst solicitors and others concerned that this delay is for the purpose of enforcing the Commissioners own interpretation of the law before the real interpretation can be settled by the referee?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI very much regret to hear that there should be an impression of the kind, and if anything can be done to remove that impression I think it is very desirable. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives me any facts about it I shall certainly take steps to see that there shall be no justification for any impression of the kind.
§ Mr. PRETYMANDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think that the immediate appointment of a referee is all that is required?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think there is a good deal from the point of view of the Inland Revenue. After all you may have one case that would cover perhaps thousands, and in fact settle the same point. Possibly some of those cases have been postponed because similar cases have been disposed of already. Otherwise we might incur enormous expense not merely on the Treasury, but on the appellant as well. Whereas if the point is settled by one case the other cases will be disposed of.
§ Mr. PRETYMANThat is exactly what I suggest, that if we get these cases settled by one referee the others would follow.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf the hon. and gallant Gentleman can point out to me that a point at issue of that kind has been delayed——
§ Mr. PRETYMANIt has.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThen I shall certainly look into it and see that expedition shall prevail.
§ Mr. POLLOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to a circular to solicitors issued by the Board of Inland Revenue, dated November, 1911 [6351], relating to the Reversion Duty and the account required to be rendered for the purpose of the duty by Section 15 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and, if so, why the exceptions to the duty to deliver an account under the above Section 15 contained in Section 14 are not-set out in the circular as well as the Section which requires the valuation to be rendered?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe circular in question does not deal with the conditions which govern liability to or exemption from Reversion Duty, but merely calls the attention of solicitors to the obligation of lessors to render accounts in cases where Reversion Duty is in fact payable.
§ Mr. POLLOCKMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will alter the terms of the notice which says that failure to make returns is owing to ignorance of the provisions of the law, and sets out the provisions of the law in question on the back?
§ Mr. PRETYMANIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this same circular makes no reference to the Revenue Act, although Section 15 is amended? That is a very serious matter.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI will consider both points raised by the two hon. Gentlemen.