§ 19. Mr. FITZROYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his statement that the 353,473 cases awaiting occasional valuations would be disposed of by April, 1915, he is aware that until an assessment has been made in respect of each of these cases the liability for duty remains, affects the disposal of the purchase money, and leaves both parties to the transaction in a state of uncertainty as to their position; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to remedy this grievance?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)The majority of the cases referred to consist either of sales, in which the purchase money would normally remain in the hands of the vendor and its disposal would be little affected by the exact amount of the duty, or of leases, where no purchase money would be paid. The transferee or lessee is not affected, as the duty, if any, is in no circumstances payable by him. In all cases it is sought to intimate the amount of duty payable as early as possible, due regard being had to cases of special urgency.
§ Mr. CASSELWill not a purchaser be affected when he desires to resell?
§ Mr. ROYDSIs the right hon Gentleman not aware that there is very general complaint from professional men and others as regards the present state of affairs?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt cannot be expected that a great valuation of this kind can be made without there being some complaints.
§ 20. Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that his estimated receipts from Land Value Duties for the current year, after deducting arrears of Undeveloped Land Duty, are only £205,000, of which sum £100,000, or nearly one-half, represents Reversion Duty, which is collected and assessed without reference to the site or other values now being ascertained under the national land valuation, he will consider the advisability of not incurring further an annual expenditure of £680,000 on the national land valuation to collect £105,000?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe capital sum expended on a national valuation cannot be regarded as an annual expenditure.
§ 21. Mr. WEIGALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the dictum of Lord Atkinson in the recent case of Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Herbert and others that fanciful estimates have to be made to fix in conformity with the provisions of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, original site value, he will consider the propriety of repealing at an early date a system of valuation and taxation set up on such a basis?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf the dictum alluded to be read in its context, it will be seen that Lord Atkinson pointed out that whether the two values by reference to which increment value is calculated be fictitious or actual is wholly immaterial, provided that a comparison between them can be made and that this comparison will supply a true measure of the amount of any increment. The existing law is designed to obtain that true measure of the increment, and the dictum therefore affords no argument for repealing the system.
§ 22. Mr. POLLOCKasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will, in view of the confusion now prevailing on the subject, issue an official statement as to whether machinery fixed or attached to the land is included in the gross value, as ascertained under Section 25 (1) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and, if so, if he will direct that such statement shall set out the nature of the machinery to be included, so as to enable owners and valuers to check valuations served on them?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe practice of the Commissioners is to include in gross value all such plant and machinery as would pass, in the absence of any reservation to the contrary, on the sale of the fee simple. Owing to the variety of conditions under which machinery is used, it is not feasible to prepare a statement specifying the nature of all machinery to be included. So far as I am aware, no serious difficulty has hitherto arisen in cases of this kind.
§ 24. Mr. WHELERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce and pass through the House of Commons during the present Session a Bill amending the Increment Duties imposed by the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt is the intention of the Government, as already announced, to deal with certain amendments of the Increment Duty in their Revenue Bill.
§ Mr. WHELERIs it the fact that the Government propose to pass an Amending Bill through the House of Commons in the present Session; and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an announcement that the Government would do that was made at the recent by-election at Leicester by the Liberal candidate?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEAny announcements I made were made to the House of Commons.
§ Mr. WHELERMay I ask whether the Liberal candidate had any authority to make that statement?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI really do not know what statement was made by the Liberal candidate at Leicester. I am only responsible for statements made in the House.
§ Mr. CASSELIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Resolution on which the Revenue Bill is founded was under discussion he gave no indication there would be any amendment of this kind?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIf the hon. and learned Gentleman says that he has been refreshing his memory I am prepared to accept his statement, but my recollection is that I did indicate it would be amended but I did not go into details.
§ Mr. CASSELNot in this particular.
§ Mr. KINGIn view of the great anxiety for legislation of this kind by the other side, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to pass it as unopposed?
§ Mr. PRETYMANWhen may we hope to see the Revenue Bill in print and introduced?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI should hope to be able to introduce it perhaps next week.