§ Notwithstanding anything contained in Section forty-two of the principal Act the Commissioners may, if they think fit, refer to the Board of Referees an application by any person or persons carrying on any trade or business as though the application were in respect of a class of trade or business under that Section, and the Board may make any order on such application which they would have made under that Section in relation to any such class.—[Mr. Betterton.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. BETTERTONI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
§
Section 42 of the principal Act says:
Where an application is made to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for an increase of the statutory percentage as respects any class of trade or business or for a calculation of the percentage standard in
2864
the case of any class of trade or business in which the amount of capital employed in the trade or business is owing to the nature of the trade or business small compared with the capital necessarily at stake for that trade or business — the Commissioners, unless they are of opinion that the application is frivolous or vexatious or relates to matters already decided by a Board of Referees, shall refer the case to a Board of Referees.
§ The object of this proposed Clause is to extend to individual traders the right conferred by that Section on a certain class of traders. It is quite obvious that there may be cases of serious individual hardship. I may be told by the Chancellor that the result of this Clause would be to overwhelm the Board of Referees with a number of cases, but I have provided for that by making it permissive in the words "the Commissioners may if they think fit."
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Gentleman has raised a point which has often been raised before, but I am bound to say he has protected himself against one of the answers usually given, that everybody would at once take his case to the Referees if he had a conceivable shadow of a case, and that in that way the Referees would be quite overwhelmed with work. Instead of that the hon. Gentleman proposes that the Commissioners may refer any case they think fit. That only means that the shower of applications would be transferred from the Board of Referees to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. It is one thing for Parliament to say we will give to some authority discretion to deal with whole classes of cases by a general measure of relief applicable to them all. It is another thing for Parliament to say "We professedly impose a tax, but we really mean the Board of Inland Revenue to settle in the case of each man what the tax shall be, to settle the standard by which the tax is assessed." I doubt whether the House would willingly allow so wide a discretion to anybody but itself, and I cannot think that so wide a discretion could be made to work smoothly or with satisfaction to the general mass of the community. I am sure we should be assailed by accusations of favouritism and that we should be called upon to prove why we bad allowed it in the case of "A" and not in the case of "B." I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will recognise the inherent difficulties and dis- 2865 advantages of the proposal and will not think it necessary to press it.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
§ The CHAIRMANThe next two Clauses on the Paper ("Appeal to Commissioners as to Percentage Standard "and" Appeal to Commissioners to fix new pre-War Standards"), standing in the names respectively of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Waddington) and of the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), deal with matters already disposed of. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Holmes) is not moving his Clause (Amendment to Fourth Schedule of Principal Act). There are three Clauses in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South-West Hull (Major Entwistle), of which the first ("Alternative Mode of Payment of Increase of Excess Profits Duty") involves a charge on the Exchequer, and the last ("Interest on Arrears of Excess Profits Duty") involves a charge on the subject, and they are, therefore, out of order. The hon. Member informs me he is going to move the other one ("Exemption of Profits from Certain Patents") on Report. That disposes of the Clauses on the Paper, but there is a Government Clause dealing with charitable donations.