§ 29. Mr. Wadeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional staff will be required to enable the Inland Revenue to give advice to firms wishing to introduce profit sharing in accordance with his recently announced policy; and what proposals he has for giving similar advice on co-partnership schemes involving employee shareholding.
§ Mr. H. BrookeMy right hon. Friend's offer during the debate on the Address on 16th June would extend to advice on the taxation consequences of co-partnership as well as profit-sharing schemes. I cannot say whether the Inland Revenue will need extra staff for this purpose. This will depend among other things on how many concerns take advantage of the offer.
§ Mr. WadeDoes the hon. Gentleman agree that there are important differences between profit-sharing and co-partnership sharing? Would he also agree that, with the very best intentions, no Inland Revenue official can remedy difficulties which arise from taxation laws or other legal obstacles?
§ Mr. BrookeI quite agree that there is a distinction between profit-sharing and co-partnership. The taxation obstacles to co-partnership and profit-sharing schemes 1487 are far smaller than they are constantly represented to be. If there are other difficulties of a non-fiscal nature, they would be outside my responsibility.