§ 54. Mr. Tinkerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the fact that some of the directors of Lamport and Holt shipping lines are to receive a lump sum of money each to cover their salaries for a period of years; and if this will be subject to Income Tax as it would have been if paid as salary yearly.
§ Sir J. AndersonI am afraid it would be contrary to all precedent and inconsistent with the secrecy that governs the assessment of taxation to afford any information in regard to the taxation liability of particular businesses or particular individuals.
§ Mr. TinkerCould we have this matter explained more fully on the Finance Bill, if I put down the necessary Amendment?
§ Sir J. AndersonI am always anxious to give the House all the information I can, but my hon. Friend will realise that the obligation of secrecy is imposed by law upon those concerned for the assessment of direct taxation.
§ Mr. A. BevanHas not this obligation been rather abused recently? Is it not a fact that information which the House of Commons ought to receive as to the disposal of public moneys has been withheld from us under this excuse of secrecy? A number of instances of the same kind have occurred recently.
§ Sir J. AndersonI should be very glad to have any instances which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, if he will send them on to me.
§ Mr. PrittWill the Chancellor consider how the law operates now in respect of gentlemen who receive compensation in the nature of lump sums, on which they would otherwise pay tax as earnings; and will he amend the law, if necessary?
§ Sir J. AndersonThat is a separate question which may well be debated; I was asked a Question regarding a particular case.