HC Deb 01 August 1939 vol 350 cc2159-61
51. Mr. Wedgwood Benn

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in April, 1933, a claim for Income Tax made by a local Bournemouth inspector upon Mr. T. J. Potter of Southbourne, Hampshire, a member of the United Law Clerks Friendly Society, was withdrawn at the instance of the Inland Revenue Department at Somerset House, on the ground that the benefit received by him from the society named was in the nature of a continued sickness or disablement benefit; whether the action taken by the Inland Revenue Department in that case is affected by the decision given on 11th July, 1939, by the Special Commissioners in the case of Forsyth; if so, in what way was it affected, and will Mr. Potter henceforth be called upon to pay Income Tax upon his benefit?

Sir J. Simon

As regards the first part of the question, the case referred to had already been brought to my notice. As regards the remainder of the question, I am unable to discuss the Income Tax position of individual taxpayers, particularly in relation to a decision of the Special Commissioners which, I understand, is to be the subject of appeal to the High Court.

Mr. Benn

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Income Tax payers are now being assessed on the Forsyth judgment? I am asking about Mr. Potter in order to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is exercising some private discretion as between taxpayers.

Sir J. Simon

Of course, there is no private discretion exercised by me.

Mr. Benn

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question? Does the Forsyth judgment cover other cases of the same kind?

Sir J. Simon

That is not a question on which I can lay down the law. My own view is that the judgment in the Forsyth case was given on the facts of that case, but it is going to appeal, and only when that appeal is decided will a final reading of the case be possible.

Mr. Benn

Has not the right hon. Gentleman stated that he proposes to collect tax from other taxpayers on the basis of the provisional decision in the Forsyth case?

Sir J. Simon

I do not think I have. I have never taken the view that the Forsyth case altered the law at all. I have explained in the House several times the application of the existing law.

58. Dr. Haden Guest

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Special Commissioners, when asked to state a case for the opinion of the High Court in the case of Mr. Forsyth, stated that the demand was premature as the liability had not been agreed; and will he, in view of the importance of this case as a governing case probably affecting thousands of other persons, take steps to expedite a decision?

Sir J. Simon

I understand that the Board of Inland Revenue have informed the Special Commissioners that, so far as they are concerned, the Board will offer no objection if the Special Commissioners see fit to state the case for the opinion of the High Court on the points arising in Mr. Forsyth's appeal, leaving the determination of the actual amount of the liability to await the Court's decision.

Dr. Guest

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this will enable the appeal to proceed as I understand that otherwise the appeal could not possibly come on until October?

Sir J. Simon

The hon. Member will realise that the Special Commissioners in this matter are a tribunal and I can, no more than anybody else, direct a tribunal. But the Board of Inland Revenue is one of the litigants and the Board has indicated to the Special Commissioners that it does not desire to wait until the figures are settled. Therefore, I think we are doing everything we can to expedite the appeal.