§ 34. Sir Arnold Gridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in the case of those British companies whose properties have been seized by the enemy, fallowing which seizures directors or staff have waived their fees or have not received their salaries, the Treasury is requiring Income Tax to be levied on income not received notwithstanding that Section 45 (5) of the Finance Act, 1927, could' not have contemplated circumstances arising out of war; and if he will take the necessary action to postpone demands for payment until such incomes have been restored.
§ Sir J. AndersonThe provision of the Finance Act, 1927, to which my hon. Friend refers, relates to cases in which an office or employment has ceased. I understand, however, that he is con- 343 cerned with some cases in which the office or employment continued, although payment of remuneration was waived or not received for the time being. In regard to such cases I would remind him of the relief which may be claimed under Section 11 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1939, and subsequent enactments where, by reason of the war, an individual's total earned income for a particular year is substantially less than the earned income as assessed for that year. I fear I cannot see my way to propose an extension of that relief.
§ Sir A. GridleyWhile we are all most anxious that my right hon. Friend should be armed with full powers to circumvent tax dodgers, does he think it appropriate for the Treasury to demand tax on income which has not been received?
§ Sir J. AndersonThat is rather a challenging question, but I think it is appropriate for the Treasury to carry out the provisions of the law as they find them. While I fully agree that the case my hon. Friend has in mind—the particulars of which I have taken the trouble to ascertain—is one of real hardship, I do not see how it could be met without a change in the law, which would really be tantamount to a privilegium, because the circumstances are peculiar to the particular case.