§ 51. Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any alterations may be anticipated in the methods of Income Tax collection, which will tend to reduce either the expenses of collection or the number of officials employed, having regard to the Economy Report and also to the favourable opinions aroused by the provisions, of the Revenue Bill of 1921?
Mr. YOUNGThe alterations to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers cannot be carried out without legislative authority. Such authority was sought in the Revenue Bill, which, owing to lack of Parliamentary time and to opposition in this House, was not proceeded with last year.
§ Sir J. NORTON-GRIFFITHSWill my hon. Friend consent to receive a deputation to discuss this matter with him?
Mr. YOUNGIf my hon. and gallant Friend will be so kind as to confer with me I shall be very glad to have the benefit of his views.
§ 54. Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a statement showing the cost of collecting the Income Tax for each year during the last 10 years?
Mr. YOUNGThe Income Tax is one of several duties collected by the Board of Inland Revenue, and it is not possible to apportion the total cost of collection between the various items. The cost of collection of Inland Revenue duties for each of the years from 1911–12 to 1919–20 is shown in Table 4 (page 8) of the 63rd Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue (Cmd. 1083). For the year 1920–21 the cost was approximately £7,927,000.
§ 57. Sir W. DAVISONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is 227 now in a position to assure the House that steps will be taken in the forthcoming Finance Bill to remove the anomalous differentiation which at present exists under the Income Tax Acts between the employE9 of a public company and the employé of a firm, whereby the former is assessed for his remuneration on the basis of the income of the current year while the income of the latter is assessed on the basis of the three preceding years; and whether, with a view to saving expense, and securing simplicity, he will consider as to assessing all individuals to Income Tax on the actual income of the preceding year, following the practice already introduced in the assessment to Super-tax whereby separate assessments for Income Tax and Super-tax would be obviated and a large reduction in stationery and costs of administration effected?
Mr. YOUNGI would refer my hon. Friend to the reply (a copy of which I am sending him) given to the right hon. Member for Aston (Sir Evelyn Cecil) on the 7th instant.
§ Sir W. DAVISONIs it not the duty of the Treasury to see that a like burden is imposed upon people in one particular class?
§ Sir W. DAVISONSurely it is the duty of the Treasury to see that the law is fair to a particular class, and that the Income Tax is not assessed on one basis for one section, and on another basis for another section?