DEATH DUTIES. (Hansard, 4 May 1914)

§ Mr. CASSEL
Is the right hon. Gentleman going to deal with the point which he promised to deal with last Session, namely, the Income Tax on married women?

§ Mr. LOUGH
The right hon. Gentleman has not yet stated the total amount he expects to receive from all branches of the Income Tax.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
And he might perhaps have stated separately the amount in addition to the ordinary Income Tax.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It will be more convenient to give those figures later on. In answer to the hon. Member for West St. Pancras, I must say that that matter is one for the Revenue Bill. Now I come to the Death Duties. I do not propose that anything shall be added to the Death Duties on estates up to £60,000 net value. At £60,000 I propose that 1 per cent. shall be added, until you reach estates of £250,000. From that point the scale will steepen until instead of a maximum of 15 per cent. you will have a maximum of 20 per cent. There are certain deductions. [An HON. MEMBER: "What will it realise?"] It will realise £3,000,000 in a full year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Additional?"] Yes. But there is one case in which I think relief should be granted, and that is one which has been pressed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer ever since the Death Duties were imposed. It is the case of quick succession. It is sometimes very hard, where a death occurs twice in the course of two, three, or four years, and the same property passes—

§ Mr. W. THORNE
Not in a case like Coats'.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
It is hard where property does not consist of liquid assets. It would be quite impossible for me in the present year to deal with all cases, because it would cost too much. Therefore I propose to deal with cases where the property which passes cannot easily be realised or charged without breaking up either the estate or the property in some shape or form—I mean realty, stock-in-trade, machinery and goodwill. It is just as hard in the latter case as in the case of realty; in fact, it is harder, because it is easier to raise money on realty than on a business. It is a very hard case where the same business passes twice in two, three or five years. I pro- 91 pose in those cases where death occurs within one year of succeeding to the property to allow 50 per cent., within two years 40 per cent., within three years 30 per cent., within four years 20 per cent., and within five years 10 per cent.

§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS
The right hon. Gentleman has not stated what the last concession will cost.

§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGE
In a full year it will cost £185,000. I think there is another accommodation, if not relief, which could be given in the case of realty. There is a difficulty very often in finding money, especially when a property is heavily-charged and the Government are considering the possibility of allowing the payment of Death Duties on real property by mortgage on the land at Government rates of interest. We are considering proposals of that kind, but I am not prepared with them at the present moment.