§ 37. Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if on several occasions claims for the payment of Income Tax have been made upon Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, a married woman living with her husband; if distraints have been levied on her goods for the recovery of the taxes; if on one occasion the claim for the tax on her income was made on her husband, and if he was imprisoned for the non-payment of the same; if so, will he say by what legal authority the claims for the taxes were made upon Dr. Elizabeth Wilks and distraints made upon her property; and what reply does he intend to make to the claim lately submitted to him by her for the repayment of those sums exacted from her under these distraints?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answers to the first, second, and third parts of the question are in the affirmative. It has been ascertained that the claims for taxes which were made on Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, and the action taken under the authority of the District Commissioners of Taxes in connection therewith without protest at the time on the part of Dr. Wilks, should have been made on and taken against her husband, who was liable for tax on her income. No sum has been received by the Revenue on account of Dr. Wilks' income which was not due, and it would not, therefore, appear that the last part of the question arises.
§ Mr. SNOWDENAre we to understand from that reply that the distraints were illegal?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo. What happened in this case was that before she allowed her husband to pay the taxes, and this year she has avoided them altogether.