§ 91. Mr. ROYDSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the equal division of opinion of the House of Lords in the Lumsden appeal and of the provisions of the Revenue Bill, which, if passed into law, would exempt builders' profits from claims for Increment Value Duty, he will agree that the Commissioners shall pay the costs incurred by Mr. Lumsden in prosecuting his appeal?
§ Mr. MONTAGUMy right hon. Friend regrets that he does not see his way to accede to the hon. Member's suggestion.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINDid not the Chancellor of the Exchequer give something like a promise that in all fair test cases of this kind the Treasury would pay the expenses of both parties? Does the hon. Gentleman not think, in a case of this kind, where the Government propose to repeal a decision by amending the law immediately it has been given, it is a most fair case for paying the expenses?
§ Mr. MONTAGUMy right hon. Friend is of opinion that the matter is on all fours with the case of the minus site values which arose in Scotland. There the same decision was arrived at.
§ Mr. CASSELIs it not the case in regard to the minus site values that no Bill was introduced to repeal it?
§ Mr. MONTAGUIt was a matter for discussion on the Bill.