§ 55. Mr. CASSELLSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Stamp Duty on feu writs was charged by the Inland Revenue in excess of that legally due, having regard to the decision in the test cases of Paul, Span and Blair versus the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; that these charges were made on misinterpretation of the effect of the case of McInnes by the Inland Revenue; and whether he is prepared to consider the refunding of the overcharges?
§ Mr. W. S. MORRISONI would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) on 21st July.
§ Mr. CASSELLSWhile I appreciate the terms of the answer to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, is it not a fact that the payments which have been made were charged by the Inland Revenue under a misapprehension with regard to the extent and effect of the judgment?
§ Mr. MORRISONThere is a definite rule of law that money paid over under a mistake of law is always irrecoverable. It is a point which cuts both ways. If the Revenue take a view of the law which is unduly favourable to the taxpayer, they would never attempt to get the money back after a decision the other way.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENThat is no satisfaction to the taxpayer. An injustice has been done to these individuals, and why not adjust it?
§ Mr. CASSELLSMay I point out to the Financial Secretary that a definite question of principle arises? Do I take it from his answer that if payment is made under a mistake, the Government are to insist on their legal rights?
§ Mr. MORRISONMy answer means this, that there is a definite rule in the law of this country that money paid over under a mistake of law is irrecoverable, but money paid over under a mistake of fact is recoverable. The equity of this whole matter demands that the same rules should apply between the Crown and the subject as apply between subjects.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENIs it not a mistake if too large a sum is demanded?