§ For the purpose of assessing Income Tax charged for the year beginning on the sixth day of April, nineteen hundred and twelve, and for any subsequent year, Section 69 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, shall have effect as though the words "not exceeding in the case of land one-eighth part, and in the case of houses one-twelfth part of the duty on an amount equal to the annual value" were omitted from Sub-section (]) thereof.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ Captain CLIVEI move this new Clause in order to elicit from the Chancellor of the Exchequer some statement as to his intentions with regard to this matter. The effect of the Clause, of course, is to enable a landlord to recover Income Tax on the whole of the repairs he can show to have been executed, and not merely on the proportion that is allowed to him under the Finance Act. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made that limited concession to landowners he thought it would cost the Exchequer half-a-million. That was to say landowners he expected would recover half-a-million which they had originally been charged on the repairs they had executed. As a matter of fact nothing of the sort has happened. The amount recovered in the first year was £9,000, and in the second year £43,000, making a total of £52,000 in two years, instead of the million pounds which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected in that period. There is one other point I should like to draw attention to. In answer to a question the Chancellor of the Exchequer informed me that a further sum of £1,200,000 had been spent on repairs by these landowners beyond the 25 per cent. on which they recovered Income Tax. The Income Tax on that sum they would be able to recover if the Clause were accepted would be £70,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a pledge—I do not want to suggest that he has broken the pledge—but he made a 2871 statement when he made this concession under Section 69 of the Finance Act (1909–10), on the 20th September, 1909:—
If, therefore, it is found that the £500,000 is not altogether disposed of by this concession, the Government will probably be in a position before next year to increase the maximum.I propose to move this Clause in order to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he intends to do to carry out the spirit of that statement.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAs the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, there are three years for which landlords can put in their claim up to April next. We do not know what claims there will be. One thing is clear, the landlords are only beginning to realise what an important concession this is for them. The first year they did not realise it at all, and consequently they only claimed £9,000; the second year they claimed up to £43,000. Now they are beginning to realise it all round, and claims are pouring in not only in respect of this year, but in respect of the three years. It is impossible for me to make any further statement at the present time. We shall be in a position to know by the time for the next financial statement what the claims will be. In some cases the failure to claim is the fault of the agent, while in other cases it is the fault of the landlord; but now they are beginning to realise the substantial character of the concession.
§ Captain CLIVECan the right hon. Gentleman say how much he expects it will cost the Exchequer? Of the million pounds there are some nine hundred and ninety thousand still available, that is a pretty wide margin.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEBut they can claim for the whole of the three years. They are sending in claims now; it would not be in respect of the current year only.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODWhat is the object of making this concession to the landlords?
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.