§ 29. Colonel BURNasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, owing to the decision in the case of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Lumsden that a vendor who sells house property for more than its valuation under the Finance Act, 1909, and as Increment Duty is payable, although the site value has not increased, he will introduce legislation to amend the Act so that a vendor can deduct from any Increment Duty arising from the sale the legal expenses he is put to in buying and selling property before any Increment Duty is assessed?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIn view of the provisions of Section 3 (5) of the Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910, I do not consider amending legislation of the nature indicated by the hon. Member to be necessary.
§ Colonel BURNWhy will not the right hon. Gentleman allow legal expenses which have been incurred in selling before the amount of Increment Duty is assessed, since he allows deductions to be made for any improvement by the landlord before Increment Duty is assessed?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt is perfectly obvious that we cannot interpret a Clause in an Act of Parliament by question and answer. It has been discussed over and over again in Committee on the Finance Bill, and I have no doubt will be discussed again.