HC Deb 31 March 1960 vol 620 cc1501-2
38. Mr. McLaren

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noted the judgments of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell and others v. Hirtenstein and others, in which criticisms were made of the statutory provisions as to deduction of expenses by Income Tax payers; and whether he will consider an amendment of paragraph 7 of the Ninth Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1952, which, with its reference to horse transport, is framed in archaic language.

Sir E. Boyle

I am aware of the criticisms to which my hon. Friend refers, but I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Mr. McLaren

Did my hon. Friend notice in particular a suggestion in the judgment that the time had come when Parliament must consider the justification of a sense of considerable distinction between the Schedule D and Schedule E expenses rule and that the pleasure of life depends upon the Schedule under which a man lives?

Sir E. Boyle

I have studied the judgment and the comments, and I think my hon. Friend will agree that this is the kind of subject we shall be discussing rather more fully in the next two or three months.