§ 66. Mr. NEWMANasked whether, in arriving at site value on the transfer or sale of a composite property, it is the custom of the Inland Revenue authorities to include with the value attributable to the buildings any profit to which they may consider the transferor or seller to be entitled and to levy Increment Duty on any excess sum then shown as compared with the site value as on 30th April, 1909; and, if so, whether any instructions have been issued to valuers defining the normal percentage of profit on a transaction which may be allowed to a seller as a deduction?
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is the duty of the valuers to ascertain the market value of the property by the ordinary processes of valuation, and the addition of a fixed percentage of profit for the seller forms no part of those processes.
§ Mr. NEWMANHas the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of studying the letter which was sent by the secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a 34 Somersetshire builder, which stated that the custom of the Inland Revenue authorities was as suggested in my question?
§ Mr. McKENNAI will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the contradiction.
§ 68. Mr. NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that Increment Duty is being claimed on the excess of any sum obtained on the sale of a composite property above its market value, it is his intention to repeal the Clause of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, which enacts that Increment Duty shall only be charged on an increase in the site value of the hereditament?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, as described in the hon. Member's question, is not, having regard to the definition in Section 2 (2), inconsistent with the Section to which he refers, and my right hon. Friend sees no reason to repeal the Section.
§ Mr. NEWMANIs there any intention of fresh legislation on this subject?
§ Mr. McKENNAI could not express an opinion on that.