HC Deb 01 August 1916 vol 85 cc22-3
30. Mr. FIELD

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the profits declared by shipowners, he will consider the advisability of taking a much larger proportion of the excess profits so as to discourage their profiteering on the transport of food supplies and raw materials; and whether he will make inquiry into the feasibility of putting an increased harbour charge on neutral vessels?


As regards the first part of the question, I fear I can add nothing to the statements I have already made as to the reasons which led me to propose that the rate of Excess Profits Duty should not exceed 60 per cent. It must be remembered that Income Tax and Super-tax are payable in respect of the remaining 40 per cent. The second part of the question concerns the Board of Trade.


asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what returns have been made or receipts collected of Income Tax or Excess Profits Tax in respect of businesses carried on by a non-resident person with a resident person in this country; and whether any disputes have arisen or have been settled with Armour and Company and other large meat companies, who have conducted business on this side with the War Office, Admiralty, and Munitions Department, and in respect of which profits have been made available for collection of Income Tax under Section 31, Sub-section (3), of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915?


My hon. Friend will appreciate that I should be precluded from publishing details of the character suggested in the question, even if they were readily available. I may further remind him that the accounts of the Inland Revenue receipt of Income Tax, Schedule D, and Excess Profits Duty would not differentiate between the class of taxpayer which he appears to have in mind and any other class of taxpayer. As regards American meat companies in general, I may refer him to my answer of 29th June last to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (South). I am sending him a copy of that answer.