§ 36. Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of Mr. Justice Horridge's recent decision in the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Lumsden, whereby payment of Increment Value Duty was directed to be made on a builder's profit and where there had admittedly been no rise in the value of the site, he will introduce legislation to indemnify owners of houses and land against liability for payment of Increment Value Duty in cases where there has been no rise in the value of the site since 30th April, 1909?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEPayment of Increment Value Duty was due on the case referred to in the question, because the builder realised a price considerably in excess of the combined market value of the land and the building erected by him. In estimating the increment value full allowance was made for the value of the house, including builder's profits; and the excess of price over value was in the nature of a fortuitous windfall, which under the Statute is liable to taxation. I do not propose to introduce amending legislation.
§ Mr. ROYDSIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these claims put forward by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are in violation of the express and repeated assurances given by Members of the Government in the House, and under these circumstances is not some explanation due to this House?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThat is not so. It is a grossly inaccurate statement.
§ Mr. PRETYMANI beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.