§ 40. Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury what were the numbers of claims made and the amount of the repayments for each of the last four years in respect of Income Tax on interest paid to banks?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu)The number of claims made in respect of Income Tax 1483 on interest paid to banks in the years 1910, 1911, 1912, and 1913, were 8,200, 9,300, 10,485, and 11,650, respectively. The figures for the first two years are approximate only. No information is available as to the amounts of the repayments.
§ 75. Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked under what Act and Section of the Income Tax Acts employés of limited companies are assessed under Schedule E?
§ Mr. MONTAGUThe assessment is under the third rule of Schedule E contained in Section 146 of the Income Tax Act, 1842.
§ 101. Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what Regulation has been or will be made to repay the excess Income Tax in cases where 1s. 4d. in the £ has been deducted by companies paying dividends to persons resident abroad; and whether it will be necessary for such persons to incur the expense and inconvenience of swearing affidavits, as in the case of claims in respect of foreign and Colonial dividends?
§ The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George)The dividends referred to being paid out of profits charged to Income Tax by direct assessment on the companies, the question of adjustment in respect of any excessive deduction of tax is one for settlement between the companies and their shareholders. No affidavits would therefore appear to be necessary.
§ 102. Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what is the number of employés of limited liability companies assessed to Income Tax, Schedule E, on average under the Board of Inland Revenue's concession?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEPrecise figures are not available, but at a rough estimate the number would be 200,000.
§ Mr. CASSELMay I ask whether there is any authority for allowing averages under Schedule E, and why it is allowed in some cases and not in others?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI should like notice of that question.
§ 107. Mr. CASSELasked what is the number of married women in respect of whose incomes returns are made by their husbands; and what is the total amount of income thus returned in the latest year for which figures are available?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGETo obtain the information asked for by the hon. and learned Member would involve the re-examination of all Income Tax returns, and I am not prepared to give directions to this effect.
§ 108. Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount which it is estimated that the revenue would lose if the incomes of husband and wife were treated as separate for the purpose of Income Tax and Super-tax; and how is this estimate arrived at?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENo definite figures are available, but from the calculations which have been made it is estimated that the immediate loss to the revenue would amount to at least £2,000,000. This figure does not take into account the loss which would inevitably arise from the transfer of income from husbands to wives for the purpose of avoiding taxation.
§ Mr. CASSELHow is it possible to arrive at that estimate without knowing the amounts?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis estimate was made some years ago for the purpose of discussion on the question of the separation of husband's and wife's incomes, and that is the conclusion they came to. Of course, it must very largely be a matter of estimate.
§ Mr. CASSELHow is it possible to arrive at that estimate without knowing the amount returned as the wife's income, and without knowing what proportion is deducted at the source?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have no doubt inquiries were made in that year. That is an estimate, and can only be an approximate one at best.
§ 110. Mr. CASSELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to put on the Paper the Clause for giving some relief to life insurance offices from the admitted grievances to which they are subject in relation to Income Tax which were recently called to his attention by a deputation representing those offices, and which will be greatly accentuated by the Finance Bill?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have placed one Amendment on the Paper as a result of the representations made to me at the deputation referred to. I hope to find an opportunity of making a statement on this 1485 question in the course of to-day's proceedings in Committee.
§ Mr. CASSELCan the right hon. Gentleman not see his way to putting down an Amendment with regard to the expenses of the insurance offices?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI did make a statement in Committee the other day about that.
§ 111. Mr. CASSELasked whether it is intended that in the case of income arising from rent in any place out of the United Kingdom and not received in the United Kingdom the same deductions and relief should be allowed under Section 5 of the Finance Bill as under Schedule A of the Income Tax Acts, or whether it is in tended that any and, if so, what deductions should be allowed from gross rent?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt is provided by Clause 5 of the Finance Bill that in estimating for Income Tax purposes the amount of any unremitted income arising from rents abroad, it shall be subject to the same deductions and allowances as if it had been received in the United Kingdom and to a deduction on account of any annual payment payable out of the income to a person not resident in the United Kingdom. For the deductions and allowances applicable to income from rent which is remitted, I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the first and fifth cases of Schedule D, in Section 100 of the Income Tax Act, 1842.
§ 112. Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the provisions of the Finance Bill giving effect to the Resolution authorising an Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 4d. have been rejected; and, if so, what authority there is now for the collection of any Income Tax having regard to Section 1 (b) of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe Resolution authorising Income Tax at the rate of 1s. 4d. has not ceased to have statutory effect, and the second part of the question does not therefore arise.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILAs the provision contained in the Finance Bill for the purpose of confirming the Resolution has been, in fact, rejected on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, when he moved that 1s. 4d. should not stand part, and that 1s. 3d. should take its place, is it not the fact that under the Provisional Collection 1486 of Taxes Act, if, after the introduction of the Finance Bill, the confirming Resolution is rejected, the Resolution ceases to have effect?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe point has been considered, and if the Noble Lord will look at the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act he will find that the variation has been made, not in Committee, but by the House, and therefore the alteration would not take place until the 1s. 3d. had been adopted on the Report stage by the House. That is the opinion obtained.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILWill the Resolution then cease to have effect altogether?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEYes, the 1s. 4d. Resolution will have ceased to have effect except to the extent of 1s. 3d. Power is given to vary only by the House and not in Committee.