§ Mr. WHELERasked whether, where persons served with notice by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax to make a return for Super-tax purposes are prepared to swear on oath that their total income for Super-tax purposes is below the amount on which Super-tax is charged, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will release such persons from the obligation to make a return of their incomes?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not see my way to accept the hon. Member's suggestion. It frequently occurs that, through an incomplete understanding of the correct method of computing the income, returns of income under £5,000 are made in cases where, after investigation of the return, liability to the Super-tax is found to exist.
§ Mr. WHELERBy what authority do the Commissioners call for this return? Can they call upon anybody they think likely to give it, and is there anything to justify the action they take up in those cases?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly. They can call upon anybody if they anticipate it will produce fruitful results.
§ Mr. WHELERMay I ask how they are to anticipate, and how do they know that?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is a secret. I do not think it would be wise for me to give it away.
§ Mr. CASSELasked why Income Tax under Schedule A, in respect of rents and royalties payable to mine owners, is not classified among Land Values Duty; and in what respect such Income Tax differs from Mineral Rights Duty so as to make Mineral Rights Duty fall within the category of Land Values Duties, while such Income Tax is excluded from the category?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhile income derived from the ownership of minerals comes under the same general law of taxation as income derived from any other source, the Legislature has imposed a further duty on mineral rights on account of the monopoly value of this particular class of property. In the circumstances, Income Tax on income derived from minerals and Mineral Rights Duty are appropriately placed in different categories.
§ Mr. CASSELIs it not the case that the Mineral Rights Duty is purely a percentage of income, and has nothing whatever to do with the valuation of property?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. and learned Gentleman asks me in reply to a question to enter into a general argument which occupied a whole afternoon once last year.
§ Mr. CASSELasked whether it has been the practice previously to give the amounts collected in respect of Mineral Rights Duty, Undeveloped Land Duty, Reversion Duty, and Increment Duty, separately, and, in particular, whether this was done on the 15th November, 1911; and what has happened since the last-mentioned date to make a change in this respect necessary or desirable?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first question—assuming that it relates to an unexpired year—is in the negative; the answer to the second question is in the affirmative. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, in refusing to give these details to the House last week, explained that he was following the ordinary practice 1175 of not anticipating in such matters the annual statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is obvious that there is a distinction in this respect between information given when little more than half the financial year has expired and information given a few weeks before its close, but I agree with the hon. Member that uniformity is desirable, and I propose that in future the old practice shall be strictly followed.
§ Mr. CASSELIs it not the case that the figures were given separately on the 15th November, which was after the expiration of a considerable period of the year, and has the recent departure from that practice anything to do with speeches recently delivered at the Albert Hall?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe practice is not to give the figures. The hon. Gentleman did not follow the answer to the question.
§ Mr. STUART-WORTLEYIs it not the fact that the figures were given up to the 7th November as regards undeveloped land alone, and in respect of the uncompleted year then current?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think if the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer he would have discovered that I have stated that already, and given an explanation of it.