61. Major NEWMANasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, any Increment Value Duty is payable when a house is sold at an increased price on the ground of an increase in site value on occasion when the adjoining and exactly similar sites are in the market at less than the original site value of the plot on which the house stands; and whether Increment Value Duty is now being claimed with his approval on the increase in the value of buildings under cover of an alleged increase in the site value on occasion?
§ 46. Mr. RAMSDENasked the Prima Minister if he still proposes to introduce the one-Clause Bill to deal with the Lumsden judgment, as promised on 23rd July, 1914; and whether he can state how many cases have arisen since 7th May, 1913, in which claims for duty by the Inland Revenue Commissioners, which would have been relieved by the legislation referred to, are in abeyance?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe whole subject of the Land Value Duties, and the effect upon them of different decisions given in the Courts, requires and will receive the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, but for this examination more time is needed than I have up to the present been able to devote to it. In the meantime, in accordance with the pledge given by the Prime Minister, duty is not being claimed in cases which would have been relieved by the proposed legislation. The particulars asked for hi the last part of Question 46 are not available.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTIn view of the necessity of a housing policy, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Part I. of the Finance Act, 1910, is likely to be repealed?
Major NEWMANDoes that answer mean that if duty has in fact been claimed it need not be paid—that is the point of the question?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe duty is not being paid—that is my information. If it is being paid, I shall be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend will give me instances.