HC Deb 06 May 1913 vol 52 cc1852-4
61. Mr. GINNELL

asked the Secretary to the Treasury on what date the Treasury arrived at its decision authorising resistance to the Bowles action against the Bank of England; what Commissioners of the Treasury were present on that occasion; what was it that induced the Treasury to sanction expenditure of public money resisting what was then the law; whether the attention of the Comptroller and Auditor-General has been directed to this fact; whether he has surcharged the Commissioners of the Treasury; and, if not, how he differentiates their case from that of local authorities, who are always surcharged for expenditure incurred by their direction in resistance to the law?

Mr. MASTERMAN

The object of the proceedings was to determine whether the deduction of Income Tax by the Bank of England was or was not in accordance with the law. Authority for the payment of the costs incurred by the Bank was given by the Board of Treasury on 10th July. It will be open to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, in the exercise of his discretion, to make such report on the payments as he may think fit.

Mr. GINNELL

Here, again, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question, "What Commissioners of the Treasury were present on that occasion?"

Mr. MASTERMAN

I think that is a request for confidential information, which I do not answer.

Mr. BUTCHER

Did the Treasury advise the Bank of England that it had a good defence in the action?

Mr. MASTERMAN

I cannot say off-hand, but I believe it was at the request of the Court that the case was argued for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue by the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. GINNELL

May I ask, in accordance with the question on the Paper—Will the Comptroller and Auditor-General be informed what Commissioners of the Treasury were present, and, if not, how can he surcharge the Commissioners in case of the payments being wrong?

Mr. MASTERMAN

I am not sure about that. I should like to have notice of the question.

Mr. GINNELL

It is on the Paper.

Mr. MASTERMAN

No, Sir, there is no question on the Paper as to whether the Comptroller and Auditor-General will be informed what Commissioners were present on the occasion.

Mr. GINNELL

Will the right hon. Gentleman state how the Comptroller and Auditor-General can, if the payments were wrong, surcharge the Commissioners unless he is informed who were present?

Mr. MASTERMAN

If the hon. Gentleman will give notice of the question, I will endeavour to answer it.

34. Mr. F. HALL

asked if the Commissioners for the collection of Income Tax have issued a number of claims in respect of omissions from first assessments dating back as far as the year 1909–10; under what authority such claims are made; what is the limit of time within which such claims must be made; what are the reasons for postponing the additional assessments for so long a period; what is the estimated revenue for 1913–14 from the proceeds of such additional assessments; and if the revenue for the present year is based on the assumption that all such assessments will be made good?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

Under the provisions of Section 23 of the Finance Act, 1907, additional assessments can be made within the year of assessment or within three years after the expiration thereof. Such assessments are made when liability is disclosed. Information as to the estimated revenue for 1913–14 from this source is not available. While the estimate of revenue for the year embraces the possibility of receipts from additional assessments, it is not dependent on the full satisfaction of all such assessments.

Mr. F. HALL

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether any additional notices have been sent out for the payment of sums of one penny and upwards?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE

indicated dissent.