38. Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAMBULLERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that His Majesty's Commissioners of Inland Revenue are claiming that Sections 34 and 35 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, have converted into personal estate property conveyed to two persons as tenants in common which for estate duty purposes was previously treated as real estate; whether he is aware that under this ruling His Majesty's Commissioners are insisting upon immediate payment of duty without any right to pay by instalments; and whether, as it was not intended to increase the incidence of estate duty by the Law of Property Act, 1925, he will give instructions that the claim for duty shall not be persisted in, and will introduce an Amendment to the Finance Bill so that in the future claims of this nature cannot arise?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe Board of Inland Revenue have been advised that the legal effect of the provisions of the Law of Property Act, to which the hon. Baronet refers, is as indicated in the question and have proceeded accordingly. I am informed that the question whether this interpretation of the law is correct is likely to come before the Courts shortly, and pending the decision of the Courts I am not prepared to take any action in the matter.
§ Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLERMay I ask my right hon. Friend if the object of the Law of Property Act is merely to facilitate transfer, and that there is no intention whatever of altering the incidence of taxation under that Act?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI really could not answer a question of that kind to do it justice without notice.