HC Deb 23 February 1926 vol 192 cc287-9

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of Super-tax is now in arrear and what is the number of taxpayers concerned."


That was never put.


There is an answer reported. In view of the fact that the main collection of the current year's tax is now proceeding, I am unable, without a disproportionate expenditure of time and labour, to state the amount of Super-tax in arrear at the present date. If my hon. Friend would repeat his question after 31st March I should hope to be in a position to give a figure at that time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February; col. 2164, Vol. 191.]


That question was never put.


It was answered.


asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that interest accrued on deposits in banks is not subject to Income Tax in the year in which it has accrued, but in the year following; whether he is aware that, if any such deposit is withdrawn and the asset no longer in existence in the bank at the period in the year following when the assessment papers are completed, the interest which had in fact been paid to the depositor escapes Income Tax altogether; and if he can give any estimate of the amount of interest income which thus escapes taxation?


I find on inquiry that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. While it is generally true that a recipient of bank deposit interest is charged on the preceding year basis, he is chargeable under Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1922, for the year in: which the interest first arises on the amount arising in that year. The particular leakage apprehended by the hon. Member does not, therefore, exist.


Is it not the case that the Government in the 1915 Finance Bill itself brought forward an Amendment to stop this leakage, and that Amendment was withdrawn after considerable pressure had been put on the Government by the bankers; and does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reintroduce that Clause in the forthcoming Budget?


So many things have happened since 1915 that I am afraid I cannot carry all the proceedings of the Budget in my head. I will look into the matter.


Could not the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of the deduction of the tax at the source, as in the case of dividends?


Well, Sir, I really must have notice of these Income Tax questions.


asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the pressure which is being made by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax for the payment of Super-tax for 1925–26,he will consider extending to the payers of Super-tax the same privileges enjoyed by payers of Income Tax, to allow payments to be made in two instalments, the second not later than June?


I fear that I could not contemplate the alteration in the law which my hon. Friend suggests, which I am advised would cost in the year of change £16,000,000.

61. Mr. RILEY

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total number of persons assessed for Income Tax and the number assessed for Supertax, repectively, for the years 1922–23, 1923–24, and 1924–25?


With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The estimated number of individuals with total incomes above the effective exemption limit of the Income Tax is as follows:

Number of Individuals. Total.
Year. Entirely relieved from tax by the operation of abatements and allowances. Chargeable with tax.
1922–23 2,700,000 2,375,000 5,075,000
1923–24 2,350,000 2,45,000 4,800,000
1924–25 2,300,000 2,400,000 4,700,000
The figures for the year 1924–25 are provisional only.

The following estimates have been made of the number of persons liable to Super-tax for the years named:

Year. Number of persons liable.
1922–23 89,000
1923–24 91,000
1924–25 90,000