HC Deb 24 May 1911 vol 26 cc248-50
Mr. CHARLES BATHURST

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can now state in how many cases repayment of excess of Income Tax under Schedule A has been made under Section 69 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; what is the aggregate amount of Treasury disbursements under this head; and what is the amount now standing to the credit of the fund for this purpose constituted by the annual apportionment of £500,000?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Claims are still coming in, and, indeed, they may still come in up to the end of the present financial year, consequently I fear I cannot yet give the figure which the hon. Member desires.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much has been repaid up to date? He has not answered that part of my hon. Friend's question. I think he might answer that?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am afraid I cannot. I understand that there is a difficulty in doing that. But I shall make an effort to find out.

Mr. PRETYMAN

We only wish for the amounts actually paid in up to date.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

I am afraid I cannot give it now.

Mr. PRETYMAN

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that under Section 17, Sub-section (5), of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, no Undeveloped Land Duty can be charged on any agricultural land let on a tenancy created before 30th April, 1909, until the first date when the tenancy could have been determined since the passing of the Act; and, seeing that in certain cases duty has been charged, levied, and paid in respect of land entitled to the benefit of this exemption, whether in these cases the money will be refunded to the owners immediately?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Full opportunity has been given to owners to claim the benefit of the exemption contained in Section 17 (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, and no claims for repayment have been preferred.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider it right to prefer claims from a Department for a tax which is not really leviable? Is he aware that the terms of this taxation being so complicated the Department knows where the tax is leviable, but individuals do not, and will he take care that in future these claims are not made?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. Gentleman has given me a very, very complicated question, which I would rather not answer straightaway. The hon. Gentleman has assumed that something or other is illegal, which I could not possibly assume, until, at any rate, I have had time to look into the matter.

Mr. PRETYMAN

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the form of my question has been altered? As I wrote it it was: "To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, under Section 17, Sub-section (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, no Undeveloped Land Duty is chargeable?…" That is the form in which I wrote my question.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman is asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who is not here as a lawyer—a question an answer to which he can obtain on payment of a guinea.

Mr. PRETYMAN

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the yield for the financial year 1910–11 of the Increment Value Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, Reversion Duty, and Mineral Rights Duty, respectively; and the cost of collection of these duties, including the cost of the valuation upon which the two first-named duties are based?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

As I explained in my financial statement last week, practically the only duty which has yielded any considerable sum up to the present time is the Mineral Rights Duty. In the case of other duties, in consequence of the small number of the settled valuations, the yield has been trifling, the sums paid into the Exchequer on account of Increment Value Duty having been £130, of Reversion Duty £260, and of Undeveloped Land Duty £2,350. The cost of collection for the whole sum of £520,000 was £7,230, excluding the non-recurrent expenditure on valuation, which as I have already mentioned is more than paid for by the more accurate valuations for Death Duties.

Mr. PRETYMAN

Is it not the fact that the ordinary method of valuation for Death Duties could be perfectly well carried out under the old Act, and that no portion of these Death Duties is due to the new Act at all?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

The hon. Member's information is quite incorrect in that respect.