§ 32. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that persons claiming reimbursement of Income Tax upon woodlands in consequence of the latter resulting in yearly loss to their owners are being informed by the authorities at Somerset House that the fact that an occupier who is an owner derives no profits or incurs a loss is not material except in a case where lands are occupied for husbandry only; whether such decision has his approval; if so, what authority there is for discriminating between agricultural husbandry and other forms of husbandry; and, if the cultivation of underwood is not deemed to be husbandry, whether the owner can claim to be assessed alternatively under Schedule D on realised profits only?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Woodlands, like other lands, are chargeable to Income Tax, Schedules A and B, under the general rules of those Schedules on their full annual value in their existing condition; but, while relief in case of loss on cultivation is specifically provided for by Statute where lands are occupied for purposes of husbandry only, no such provisions exist with regard to woodlands which have never been regarded as falling within the description of "husbandry." There being no statutory authority to assess woodlands under Schedule D, an owner cannot claim to be charged under that Schedule on realised profits only.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTDoes that mean that although there may in fact be no annual value in woodlands yet income tax will be charged? Also upon what authority does the right hon. Gentleman say that woodland husbandry is not husbandry?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI never said that woodland husbandry is not husbandry, as the hon. Member will see if he looks at the answer.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEShould not the Liberal party give up saying that they are going to assist forestry in this country?