§ 40. Dr. Strossasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will allow contributions to the arts by industrial establishments to qualify for exemption from taxation.
§ Mr. SimonNo, Sir. My right hon. Friend does not see his way to propose a change of this character in the general taxation law.
§ Dr. StrossDoes the Financial Secretary not agree that if the Government themselves will not adequately support the arts, they should make it easy for industry and private citizens to do so, and that if they will not themselves pay for it and they allow no one else easily to come forward to take a part, that is a disgraceful state of affairs?
§ Mr. SimonNo, Sir. To make a tax change of this sort would involve a remission in taxation to individual taxpayers and, thus, a burden on the general body of taxpayers, which would amount to a Government subvention. It would not be shifting the burden from the Government to anybody else. With regard to the actual proposal, I do not think that it would be practical to make a distinction between one type of good cause such as this and another.
Mr. H. WilsonIn view of earlier answers this afternoon, why do the Government allow tax deductions for contributions for political purposes, direct and indirect, and refuse them for contributions to arts? Are the Government not making this distinction between a good cause and a bad one?
§ Mr. SimonNo, Sir. In general, payments for political purposes are not a proper deduction from gross income. [Interruption.] The Tate and Lyle case turned on a narrow point. The test laid down by the general taxation law applies to all types of expenditure. The expenditure must not be of a capital nature and it must be laid out wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade. My understanding of the Tate and Lyle case is that it was merely said that a company was entitled to lay out expenditure for the protection of its assets.
Mr. H. WilsonWill the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether contributions to the F.B.I. for its pamphlet on nationalisation are allowed for tax purposes as being wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade of the firm concerned?
§ Mr. SimonI should require notice of that question, because, as far as I know, it has not arisen in any case.
§ Mr. BevanIf the industry concerned employed the services of one or other eminent artist to illustrate its propaganda, would it rank for exemption from tax?
§ Dame Irene WardOn a point of order. May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Are Privy Councillors entitled to ask any number of questions?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid there is no Ruling against it.
§ Dame Irene WardI have risen three times to ask a supplementary question.
§ Dr. StrossIn view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.