§ 48. Mr. Bossomasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is prepared to propose any remedy to overcome the hardship suffered by certain taxpayers who, under Section 3 (2) of the Income Tax(Offices and Employments) Act, 1944, have borne tax under the Pay As You Earn system in respect of income earned is the Year ended 5th April, 1944, and which they cannot normally recover until the employment ceases or a Year arises in which no income is earned.
§ Mr. DaltonNo, Sir. I do not agree that there was any hardship.
§ Mr. BossomDoes not the Chancellor think that it is most unfai that the money cannot normally be recovered until employment ceases or until a year arises in which no income is earned, and does he consider that it is fair that money taken in 1944 should be held up all this time until the person concerned stops earning?
§ Mr. DaltonThe hon. Member has had a long correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on the subject, and I have looked at the letters exchanged. I believe, in the latter part of last year. My right hon. Friend did his best to make it clear why the Treasury feels that there is no hardship in our view In concluding a letter dated 25th August, he said:
The taxpayer had the benefit of the cancellation of part of the tax charged in the period 1943–44 to bring him up to date with his tax payments, and if as a result of this he paid tax on the receipt basis instead of the earnings basis there could be no hard ship of ground for complaint.
§ Mr. BossomThis farmer paid £750 and the Treasury concluded their letter by saying that there was no hardship ground for complaint. Would the Chancellor himself like to have someone take £750 away from him, and would he say then that there was no hardship?
§ Mr. DaltonI have looked into this very carefully and I am quite satisfied that the man concerned has not been requirea to pay any more than is due over the series of years.
§ 50. Sir Frank Sandersonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing amount of work incurred in preparing Income Tax and Surtax returns, he will consider allowing 1570 the charges of an accountant against such income to a private person, as is legally the case for both private and limited companies.
§ Mr. DaltonNo, Sir.
§ Sir F. SandersonDoes the Chancellor not consider that it is in the interests of the Treasury that Income Tax returns should be strictly accurate? Does he not also agree that it is necessary to appoint an accountant for this purpose, and can he say why a company should be given an advantage over a private individual.
§ Mr. DaltonThe hon. Gentleman has put this Question on four occasions to my predecessors. He asked Mr. Neville Chamberlain the Question in July, 1936; he asked Sir John Simon the same Question in December, 1939, and he repeated it to Sir John Simon in February, 1940. He also put it to my immediate predecessor in October, 1943 All my illustrious predecessors gave the hon. Gentleman exactly the same answer in a lot more words than I have used.
§ Mr. Oliver StanleyAre we to under-stand, then, that the right hon. Gentleman is bound by the answers of his predecessors?
§ Mr. DaltonWhen they are good answers, yes.