§ 60. Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will obtain the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legality of the Inland Revenue authorities in making repayment of Income Tax on a wife's income not to her but to her husband, in view of the Married Women's Property Act of 1882?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe Income Tax Act, 1918, which consolidates all the Income Tax Acts from 1842 onwards, provides specifically that "the profits of a married woman living with her husband shall be deemed the profits of the husband." This provision is not overridden by anything in the Married Women's Property Act, 1881, and I do not see what question of doubt there would be for the Law Officers to consider.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONAre we to understand from the answer that the Married Women's Property Act is now a dead letter, and that the Inland Revenue Commissioners can treat a wife's income as part of her husband's income?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy hon. Friend must not understand what I did not say. I confine my answer to what I do say.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONIs it not a fact that the Married Women's Property Act gives a wife complete control of her own property?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINNeither I nor the Inland Revenue are responsible if Parliament appears to my hon. Friend to have legislated in a contrary sense at different times. The Income Tax Acts are quite clear, and were repeated in the Consolidated Act of last year. If the hon. Member can show me that there is any reasonable case of doubt to be submitted to the Law Officers I will submit it, but at present I cannot see where any doubt comes in.
§ Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONWill the right hon. Gentleman do his best to bring the Income Tax law into harmony with the Married Women's Property Act?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat raises another question.