HC Deb 17 April 1913 vol 51 cc2127-9

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a claim for £3 18s. was made for Increment Duty on Mr. F. F. Schweitzer, a man belonging to the working classes, who had purchased a leasehold house in 1908 for £270, and who had sold it two years later at a loss of £10; that Schweitzer's solicitors had a correspondence on the subject with the Board of Inland Revenue, the district valuer, and others, and resisted the claim; that on the solicitors insisting that no Increment Duty was payable, and on giving notice of appeal, the claim was completely withdrawn; and that the solicitors demanded payment of their costs in the matter, and the Board without comment paid these costs in full; and will he say under which Act of Parliament or authority were these costs paid, and out of which fund were they provided?


The facts are substantially as stated by the hon. Member. The claim was withdrawn on its being ascertained that a substituted site value had been allowed by the valuer under the provisions of Section 2 (3) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, the effect of the substitution being to cancel the liability to duty. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue considered that the case was one in which the costs incurred by Mr. Schweitzer might properly be paid by them, and the payment was accordingly made out of the sums voted by Parliament for Law Costs and Expenses of Appeals, which are included in the Inland Revenue Estimates under Sub-head D. D.

86. Mr. NEWMAN

asked whether it is the practice and duty of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to set out to those who are assessed for purposes of Increment Value Duty any exemptions to which they are entitled, or whether the onus of setting out and claiming any such exemptions is held to rest on the owner of the hereditament?


It is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to draw the attention of persons who are primâ facie liable to pay Increment Value Duty to the exemptions and allowances which may be claimed, at the time when these persons are informed of the site value proposed to be adopted on the occasion giving rise to the claim for duty. Exemptions and allowances which are obviously due are granted without claim.

87. Mr. NEWMAN

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Law Officers of the Crown have yet had time to look into the transactions in real estate of Mr. Lindsell, the Willesden road-sweeper, who purchased a house in Kensal Rise and sold the same at a loss of over £50: and whether he will state if the claim for £4 15s. 1d. Increment Value Duty, in respect of which legal proceedings have been threatened by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue against Mr. Lindsell, will be proceeded with?


The transactions referred to by the hon. Member are being further investigated, and I am unable at present to make any statement in the matter.