§ 100. Mr. TICKLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any estimate has been formed of the extent to which the intention of levying Excess Profits Duty upon co-operative societies will be defeated by the practice of giving special discounts specifically recommended by the directors of such societies as the best means of escaping from liability for the tax?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe practice referred to by the hon. Member is receiving the careful attention of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. To the best of my knowledge it is not widespread, and I do not anticipate that the revenue will suffer.
101. Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the combined effect of the Munitions of War Act, 1915, and the Finance Bill, 1916, in the matter of excess profits in controlled and uncontrolled firms, respectively; and whether it is the intention of the Government to discriminate between such firms, so that while both retain the same proportion of excess profits up to 50 per cent. excess uncontrolled firms are permitted to retain a much larger proportion than controlled firms of excess profits over 50 percent, excess?
§ Mr. McKENNAI would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Wednesbury on the 30th May, of which I am sending him a copy.
§ 102. Major ASTORasked whether British owners of shipping registered in the Crown Colonies and in the Chinese treaty port of Shanghai are liable to Excess Profits Tax on such vessels?
§ Mr. McKENNAIf the business is owned or carried on by a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, liability to Excess Profits Duty arises.
§ 110. Sir D. GODDARDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the granting special depreciation in the case of ships purchased by a gas company during the period since the commencement of the War, at a greatly enhanced price due to the War, such ships being used solely for the purpose of bringing coals necessary for the manufacture of gas and returning empty in each case?
§ Mr. McKENNAI am in possession of the facts of a case which comes within the terms of my hon. Friend's question. I cannot see any sufficient reason for making such an exception as he suggests to a provision which is designed to protect the revenue from loss of Excess Profits Duty where vessels have changed hands since the War began.