§ 1. Mr. Pageasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will terminate the inequality in tax burden between the owner-occupier of a residence elevated upon wheels and the owner-occupier of a residence the foundations of which are immobile.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory)I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.
§ Mr. PageIs not it another of the anomalies under Schedule A tax that the owner-occupier of, for example, a residence costing £500 should have to pay tax and the owner-occupier of, for example, a caravan costing perhaps £1,000 should get off scot-free? Will my right hon. Friend look into this or possibly do away with Schedule A tax altogether?
Mr. AmoryAs to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I will certainly look into this, as I will into any other point which is relevant to this Question that he cares to raise with me.
§ 2. Mr. Barterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken by the Inland Revenue authorities to draw the attention of the taxpayer to his right, 180 in certain circumstances, to claim relief from Income Tax, Schedule A, on the sums expended on maintenance of his property, fire insurance and management where those exceed the statutory repairs allowance.
Mr. AmoryAttention is drawn to this relief in the notes accompanying demands and receipts for Schedule A tax, Income Tax return forms and Pay-As-You-Earn coding notices.
§ Mr. BarterWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it appears that between one-tenth and one-twelfth only of owner-occupiers make any claim in this connection? Will he bear in mind the need to draw attention to the entitlement to make this claim so that the other owner-occupiers, who are paying about £34 million a year in tax, may have an opportunity to secure some relief?
Mr. AmoryThere is no guarantee that they would secure any relief, because that would depend on the circumstances. I think that the notices which are included are very adequate to the purpose.
§ 3. Mr. Pageasked the Chancellor of Exchequer upon what principle maintenance claims against Schedule A Income Tax liability may include wall covering, for example, repapering, but not floor covering, for example, renewal of linoleum, liquid or otherwise.
Mr. AmoryI take it that my hon. Friend is referring to claims made by owner-occupiers. The principle is that the expenses which are admissible are those which are incurred by the owner-occupier as owner and not those which he incurs as occupier. The detailed application of this rule in cases of dispute is a matter for the General Commissioners of Income Tax.
§ Mr. PageDoes not this rule show the out-of-date nature of Schedule A tax altogether? Is not it a fact that in modern dwellings floor coverings are just as usual and as common as wall coverings? Will my right hon. Friend look at the rule again in present circumstances?
Mr. AmoryI do not think that is necessary. It is just a question of what would normally be a landlord's 181 responsibility and what would normally be a tenant's responsibility, and that is precisely the line we try to draw.
§ 4. Mr. Pageasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will permit the allowance in maintenance claims against Schedule A Income Tax liability of a reasonable sum for labour when the owner-occupier himself carries out the repair work.
§ Mr. PageIs not this grossly unfair to the person who tries to save money by doing his own work in the house? Does not it benefit the person who has the money and can afford to pay for it to be done?
Mr. AmoryNo, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The point here is what the man actually has to pay for.
§ Mr. JayIf the income itself is taken in real terms as liable to taxation, surely the maintenance in real terms might be included also?