§ 20. Mr. PRETYMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum of £21 15s. 9d. has been demanded from the Harborne Charity Trustees for Reversion Duty on the determination of a lease granted by them; whether this claim is based on a valuation formally agreed to by the district valuer, or whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have altered the district valuer's figures and have thus doubled the claim for duty; whether the Commissioners claim the right to alter, against the taxpayer, figures agreed to in writing by the district valuers; and whether, in view of the fact that a test case governing the method of assessing Reversion Duty and affecting the Commissioners' claim in this particular case is now awaiting a hearing in the High Court, he will defer pressing this claim against the charity until the test case has been finally decided?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the claim is based on a valuation made in accordance with the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; the figures provisionally agreed to by the district valuer were found to have been arrived at under a misapprehension as to the provisions of the law, and the case was accordingly referred back to him by the superintending valuer for correction without the intervention of the Commissioners, whose duty, however, it is to see that claims for duty are made upon a correct basis. The last part of the question does not arise inasmuch as the duty has already been paid.
§ Mr. PRETYMANWill the right hon. Gentleman take steps to refund the duty if the decision of the test case is against him?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAs a matter of fact that will be done.