§ 50 and 51. Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNEasked the Chancellor of the Ex- 1084 chequer, (1) whether he will state for each year since the operation of the Finance Act, 1927, the number of cases referred to the board of referees, under Section 31 (7) (c) of the Act, and the number of cases in which the board determined that there was not a prima facie case of liability;
(2) whether he will state, for each year since the operation of the Finance Act, 1922, the total number of cases heard by the board of referees; how many cases in each year were brought before the board by the Inland Revenue, and the number decided in favour of the Inland Revenue; and how many cases were brought before the board by the taxpayer, and the number of such cases decided in favour of the Inland Revenue?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINAs the answer to these questions is somewhat long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNEWithout pressing my right hon. Friend for details, may I ask him whether the number of cases in which decisions in favour of the taxpayer have been given represents a very small proportion of the total number of cases submitted?
§ Following is the answer:
| Number of cases referred to the Board of Referees under Paragraph 5 (c) of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1922, as amended by Section 31 (7) of the Finance Act, 1927. | ||
| Year. | Number of cases referred to Board of Referees. | Number of Determinations that there was not aprima facie case of liability. |
| 1928–29 | 21 | — |
| 1929–30 | 156 | 7 |
| 1930–31 | 64 | 2 |
| 1931–32 | 34 | 3 |
| 1932–33 | 28 | — |
| 1933–34 | 27 | — |
| 1934–35 | 39 | — |
| 1935–36 | 33 | 2 |
| Total | 402 | 14 |
| Number of Appeals reheard by the Board of Referees under paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1922. | ||||||||
| Year. | Total number of Appeals reheard. | Rehearing required by Crown. | Decision in favour of Crown. | Rehearing required by Company. | Decision in favour Of Crown. | Rehearing required by Crown and Company. | Decision in Cross-Appeals. | Remarks. |
| 1924–25 | 2 | — | — | 2 | — | — | — | — |
| 1925–26 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — |
| 1926–27 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | — | — | — |
| 1927–28 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 3* | — | — | *1 of these decisions was partly in favour of the Company. |
| 1928–29 | 8 | 3 | 3* | 5 | 4† | — | — | *1 of these decisions was partly in favour of the Company. |
| †3 of these decisions were partly in favour of the Company. | ||||||||
| 1929–30 | 4 | — | — | 4 | 4 | — | — | — |
| 1930–31 | 12 | 6 | 4* | 6 | 3 | — | — | *1 of these decisions was partly in favour of the Company. |
| 1931–32 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 2 | Special Commissioners Appeal decision affirmed. | — |
| 1932–33 | 5 | 1 | — | 3 | 2 | 1 | Crown won both Appeals. | — |
| 1933–34 | 2 | — | — | 1 | — | 1 | Crown won both Appeals. | — |
| 1934–35 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4* | — | — | * 1 of these decisions was partly in favour of the Company. |
| 1935–36 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — |
| Totals | 64 | 23 | 17* | 37 | 26* | 4 | — | * Subject to notes above. |