Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that he now realises the effect on hotel proprietors of being called on to pay heavy licence duties in respect of stables, outbuildings, and stores, quite separate premises, he would give instructions to the Customs officers not to press for payment of licence duties in respect of such premises?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think there is any case for treating hotel-keepers more favourably in this respect than any other class of licensee.
§ Mr. ROYDSasked whether on a transfer on sale being an occasion on which Increment Value Duty becomes chargeable under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, a new valuation of the land will be made by the Commissioners; and, if so, under what authority?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have nothing to add to my reply of the 17th instant which explained the nature of and authority for the valuations which are to be made on the occasion of a sale.
§ Mr. ROYDSMay I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has not yet given the authority for making the new valuation?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf the hon. Gentleman has any further question I had rather that he put it down. It refers to a matter of legal interpretation, and I do not like to give an answer without consideration.
§ Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the assessable site value of land where the fences are live fences will, in consequence of the statutory deduction, necessarily be fixed lower than in the case of precisely similar land where the fences are stone walls or dykes, for which no deduction will be made; and if he will explain why the site values of land of precisely the same actual value are to be valued for the purposes of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, at different values?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. Even if dykes and stone walls do not receive the same treatment as live fences, I do not propose an Amendment, which would be prejudicial to the taxpayer, as explained by me on the 17th instant.
§ Mr. ROYDSWould the right hon. Gentleman answer fairly the latter part of my question as to why the value should be different?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is exactly what I answered on the 17th instant. If 141 there is any alteration made it is an alteration which will not be to the detriment of the Treasury, but quite the reverse. If the hon. Gentleman really wants an alteration which will injuriously and prejudicially affect the taxpayer, if he puts down an Amendment to the Finance Bill it will be open to consideration. It is not for me to object to receive more taxes.