The report has been received and will be published in due course as a White Paper for the information of Members.
§ 57. Mr. LEONARD
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider the amendment of the Finance Act with a view to allowing rebates of Income Tax to those persons who are now compelled to maintain relatives whose claims for benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts have been refused?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on the 26th April of last year to a similar question by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Hutchison).
§ 60. Mr. HICKS
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Miss L. A. Jeffreys, in which the inspector of taxes for the Chiswick district appealed to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in respect to the alleged liability of Miss Jeffreys to pay the sum of 10s. in Income Tax; whether he is aware that the Commissioners refused the appeal of the inspector, who now desires to take 355 the case to the High Court; and whether in such event any costs incurred by Miss Jeffreys will be borne by the Inland Revenue authorities?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha)
The case referred to is only one of a large number of similar cases. But it is in no sense a test case, for the Income Tax Commissioners' decision was at variance with the established practice based on decisions of the Courts. In these circumstances the Inland Revenue authorities would not be justified in undertaking to pay the taxpayer's costs, whatever the event.