§ 88. Sir GEORGE YOUNGERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether claims for Undeveloped Land Duty are being made against owners who before 30th April, 1909, have granted a lease of land not used for agricultural purposes (the lease being one having less than fifty years to run), notwithstanding that the lessor has no power during the currency of the term to 1637 develop the land; and whether he will introduce legislation to remove such a hardship?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I am not aware that the existing provision of the law has given rise to undue hardship.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERHas not the right hon. Gentleman considered that in a case of that sort, where a man has a lease of a house and a few acres, the lessor cannot develop the land, and is it not very unfair?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe hon. Baronet is always inviting me to enter into a discussion upon the merits of the Land Taxes by way of question and answer. That is obviously impossible. He will have his opportunity later on.
§ 89. Mr. FITZROYasked whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are claiming Undeveloped Land Duty upon grounds of private schools, when those grounds are essential to the proper conduct of the school?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertain claims to Undeveloped Land Duty in respect of land belonging to a private school have been made and subsequently withdrawn upon the full facts being brought to the notice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; other claims have been maintained on the ground that the land is not bonâ fide used for the purposes of the school.
§ 90. Mr. MILDMAYasked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are claiming Mineral Rights Duty in respect of shale clay; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the extraction of shale oil from shale clay is a new experiment, he will give instructions that no duty shall be charged in respect of shale clay, so that experimental work, undertaken with the object of obtaining fresh sources of oil supply, shall not be hampered in its infancy?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, the hon. Member is doubtless aware that the tax is payable by the owner of the mineral royalty, and accordingly does not hamper the activities of a working lessee 1638 who may be engaged in experimental work.
§ 92. Mr. HOHLERasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, in cases where an amended provisional valuation has been served and the owner of the property has been put to expense on account of the original provisional valuation being inaccurate, he will direct the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to refund to such owner the expenses he has incurred?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer is in the negative. The point raised by the hon. and learned Member was very fully discussed when the Finance Bill of 1909 was before this House.
§ Mr. HOHLERDid not the right hon. Gentleman promise that the landowners should be put to no expense in the matter of valuation?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo, certainly not.
§ 93. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether any assessments to Undeveloped Land Duty have been served before the owner of the property has received a valuation; and, if so, whether such course has the sanction of the Treasury?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am not aware of any cases such as those referred to in the first part of the question, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with specific instances I will cause inquiry to be made into the matter.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am myself a victim and that legal proceedings have been threatened against me?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSWill the right hon. Gentleman interfere now?
94. Mr. F. HALLasked the right hon. Gentleman if he has received a memorial from the Auctioneers and Estate Agents' Institute asking that the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, may be amended so as to make it clear, in accordance with the intention expressed by him at the time when the Finance Bill was before Parliament, that Increment Duty is only leviable upon profits derived directly from an increase in site value and not upon profits due to the business capacity of owners in 1639 dealing with buildings upon such sites; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in the matter?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part the memorial is being carefully considered, but I am not at present able to make a definite statement in the matter.