HC Deb 11 June 1936 vol 313 cc379-80

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under Section 42 of the Finance Act, 1920, a purchaser of a security transferable by deed has to pay a stamp duty of £1 for each £100, whereas if a Stock Exchange dealer purchases a security value £100,000, which is transferred upon one deed, the stamp duty is but 10s.; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this anomaly, in view of the fact that the Exchequer would have benefited by £803,197 during the year to 31st March, 1936, had Section 42 of the said Act not operated during that period?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain)

I am, of course, aware of the facts recited by the hon. Member, but I cannot agree that there is any anomaly. Transfers into the name of a dealer on a Stock Exchange differ essentially from other transfers in that stock so transferred represents not a purchase for investment but a part of the dealer's stock in trade. Consequently if the full £1 per cent, duty were made applicable to such transfers, the duty would act as a tax on the turnover of a dealer's business. The hon. Member no doubt appreciates that if a dealer does not sell the stock in his name within two months the full £1 per cent, duty has to be paid by him.


asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what justification existed for supplying members of the public with transfer forms free during the financial year 1935–36 at a cost to the Exchequer of approximately £975; and will he take steps to see that a charge is made for such transfer forms in future?


As the hon. Member is probably aware, it is only forms with stamps on them that are supplied without charge for the form. The use of stamped forms, as compared with the alternative of stamping transfers after execution, enables savings to be made in other directions which counterbalance the cost of the forms. The cost of the separate forms is trifling and their issue free is a reasonable facility which I see no reason to discontinue.