HC Deb 02 July 1924 vol 175 cc1378-81
Sir H. BUCKINGHAM

I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, to leave out the words "thirty days" and to insert instead thereof the words "three months."

This is a matter in which I have taken considerable personal interest, and it refers to residents abroad. I think the Chancellor would be fair to accept the first Amendment. The Bill gives 30 days during which time anybody aggrieved by the decision of the Inland Revenue Commissioners has the right to make an appeal. My Amendment asks that the period be extended to three months. The reason I ask it is that people affected by this Clause are often resident abroad and live, perhaps, in distant parts of the Empire and the world generally. It is quite likely they may get the decision of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and feel aggrieved. To give them only 30 days to express their disapproval seems a short period, and I ask the Chancellor to give three months. It will not make any difference in the result to the revenue; it only gives a little longer time.

Mr. SNOWDEN

I think the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member is quite reasonable, and I will be glad to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM

I beg to move, in page 11, line 26, after the word "the" to insert the words "General Commissioners or."

The right of appeal to the Special Commissioners should not only be given. There should be a right of appeal to the General Commissioners. The object of the Amendment is not in any way to disparage the Special Commissioners. They are people on whom we can rely for fair judgment, but at the same time we cannot forget that they are paid officials of the Inland Revenue, and therefore, in some people's mind, there is the fear that their judgments may not be quite so fair, shall I say, as if the appeal could also be made to the General Commissioners of Income Tax. I would remind the Committee that it is usual that Income Tax appeals from any assessment can be made either to the General or to the Special Commissioners, and what I am asking is an extension of this generally accepted principle to the Clause. I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have any objection to granting this concession. It should be made on all fours with other rights of appeal under Income Tax law.

Mr. W. GRAHAM

I hope that the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. The position is that under this Clause of the Finance Bill we are making certain arrangements with reference to rights of appeal on questions of domicile or residence abroad. Due to the great increase of Income Tax and Super-tax in recent years, there has been a tendency to reside outside the country, and to obtain exemption from taxation. There have grown up intricate questions of domicile. What the hon. Member proposes in this Amendment is so to extend the Clause as to give that right of appeal to the General Commissioners. Our contention is that it is much better to confine it to the Special Commissioners, and I hope the Committee will agree with us. It is plain, first of all, that many difficult problems must arise, and I should imagine that most hon. Members familiar with Income Tax questions will realise that it is important that such technical and legal points should go to a body of commissioners specially qualified to deal with them. That is the first consideration I advance in support of the attitude which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is adopting towards the Clause.

In the second place, there is another argument of peculiar force. If an appellant wished to bring an appeal it would be difficult to say to what body of General Commissioners that appeal should be addressed. I fail to understand how, for example, an appeal of that kind from a place abroad would be addressed to, say, the General Commissioners at Bristol, or elsewhere. There is a question of administration presenting difficulties, and we have come to the conclusion that this would be an inappropriate Amendment. I would remind the hon. Member that he himself, a year ago, moved an Amendment of a somewhat analogous nature. It dealt with the rights of people who had made errors in their assessment, and he did not specify the General Commissioners at all, but confined his Amendment exclusively to Special Commissioners. Much the same argument applies to this case, because of innumerable legal and technical difficulties. I venture to express the hope that he will not press the Amendment.

Sir H. BUCKINGHAM

I am obliged, in justice to myself, to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment moved last year was not worded by me. My Amendment was certainly an appeal to the General Commissioners, but the Amendment, as it appeared before the House, was the result of policy, I was advised, and for that same reason I quite agree that there are difficulties in the way of granting the appeal to the General Commissioners. At the same time, I must say that, if for instance, a resident abroad had an agent in Bristol who is doing business in the neighbourhood of Bristol, and who had a knowledge of his affairs, he would be able to appeal to the General Commissioners at Bristol through his agent there. But I do not wish to press the point and I therefore withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.