§ Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
1642§ Mr. BarberI am sorry to strike a discordant note, but if I say a few words I think it would be for the advantage of the Committee, and, indeed, of those outside. There is one point on the Clause which I should like to make clear. It is, as the Committee will have appreciated—not perhaps from our previous discussion but from reading the Clause —in the main an anti-avoidance provision. However, it has been pointed out that, as it is at present. drafted, it would apply to the case where property is sold and immediately leased back to the vendor. Hon. Members will know that this is a common type of commercial type of transaction these days and, as there is no interval between the sale and the lease, it cannot be contended that the transaction amounts to a lease from the vendor to the purchaser for a period in return for a disguised premium. We are considering how best to deal with this type of transaction, but I think that I should tell the Committee now that we shall table an Amendment on Report to exclude it from the charge which would otherwise arise under the Clause as it now stands.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.