§ 68. Mr. CURRIEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn by the Associated 382 Chambers of Commerce to the accidental inequity brought about to excess tax payers by the device adopted, for the sake of convenience, by assessors of pitting one year's assessment levy against another instead of one' year's trading result against another; and how he proposes to rectify it?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It is the principle of the Excess Profits Duty, as laid down in Section 45 of the Finance Act, 1916, to provide a set-off in respect of deficiencies of profit against excess profits by reference to the rate of duty in force for the periods in which the excess and deficiency arise. The occasion for considering the point raised by my hon. Friend can only arise in connection with the assessment of the duty for the final accounting period.
§ 70. Sir F. LOWEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in computing the excess profits tax, he will recognise the claims of those who have sunk capital in developing industries to have the amount so expended by them added to their other capital expenditure in estimating their pre-war standard of profits?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIn computing capital for the purposes of Excess Profits Duty account is taken under existing law of proprietors' capital employed in the business. A return on unremunerative capital invested during the standard years is also provided for by Section 41 (4) of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915.
§ Sir F. LOWEIs my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of the development of new industries, such as rubber companies, there has been hardship through the money they have expended not being taken into account as capital, but being treated as lost money?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWNo; as far as I recollect that is not the ground of their complaint. It is a very complicated subject, and could not be dealt with by way of question and answer.
§ Sir F. LOWEWill my right hon. Friend be prepared to deal with it on the Budget to some extent?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI have received deputations. Of course, if any Amendment is moved on the subject it will be considered.
§ 72. Mr. WHITEHOUSEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Excess Profits Tax is payable by clergy men and other persons in receipt of tithe in respect of the increase during the War in tithe rent charges?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWReceipt of tithe does not constitute a business within the scope of the Excess Profits Duty.
§ Mr. KINGIn view of the large increase in tithe rent charges during the War and the necessity for getting more money, will some consideration be given to it when the Finance Bill is in Committee?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe hon. Member has forgotten that the Excess Profits Duty does not apply unless the amount exceeds £200. I do not think there are many cases.