§ Mr. ROYDSasked whether claims have been made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for Increment Value Duty upon 384 sale of a house and land when they have been sold at an actual loss and no increase had taken place in the value of the site since 30th April, 1909; and, if so, whether directions will be given for the discontinuance of such claims?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)The basis of calculating the site value of a composite property on the occasion of a sale is the subject of several appeals, and pending the final decision of the Courts, I am not prepared to make any statement on the matter.
§ Mr. ROYDSasked whether the valuers in ascertaining assessable site value under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, have been instructed to disallow any claim for deduction in respect of works executed or expenditure incurred in improving the value of the land unless such claim is accompanied by actual details of the cost of such works; and whether, in cases where the reclamation and user of lands are solely attributable to works executed, such as sea walls, embankments, and drainage of fen lands, where it is impossible to produce actual proof of outlay, the valuers have been instructed to disallow any claim for deduction?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe Statute requires owners desirous of claiming site value deductions in respect of works executed or expenditure incurred in improving the value of the land to prove to the Commissioners the value attributable to such works or expenditure. The Commissioners have instructed the valuation officers to accept reasonable evidence in support of such claims, and details of the amount of the expenditure are not required if the accretion of value can be otherwise demonstrated.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the capital expended and remuneratively invested is taken as capital expended with the object of raising the value of the land, such as railway building carried out on the Great Eastern Railway?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI would not like to answer a technical question of that kind without notice. If my hon. Friend will put it on the Paper, I will answer it.
§ Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that when substituted site value is applied for in respect of a freehold house and land the 385 Commissioners decline to accede to the application unless the owner can prove that on purchase the price paid for the land apart from buildings exceeded the assessable site value; and whether, in view of the fact that on purchase no separate values are ever placed on the site and buildings respectively and it is not possible for an owner to comply with the Commissioners' requirements, he will give directions for the present practice to be discontinued?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The Commissioners do not require proof that the price paid for the land apart from the buildings exceeded the assessable site value.
§ Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the ascertainment of the site values of component parts of an occupation in respect of which separate valuations have been required, he will instruct valuers to make their valuation of each part as if the whole of such occupation were divested of buildings in accordance with the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in view of the fact that the present practice of valuing one part of an occupation as if it were divested of buildings and the other component parts as if it were not is contrary to the provisions of the Act?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am advised that the existing practice is in accordance with the provisions of the law, and it is therefore unnecessary to give instructions such as the hon. Member suggests.