Clause 55.—(FURTHER NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT OF LEVY.) (Hansard, 27 October 1966)

§ Mr. Willey
I beg to move Amendment No. 78, in page 54, line 36, to leave out from 'amount' to the end of line 39 and to insert: 'appearing to the Commission to be the amount required to make good the deficiency, after taking into account the principal amount specified in the original notice and in any previous notice served under this section and any relief (whether by way of repayment or otherwise) given or required to be given in respect of the levy in question'. 1341 This Amendment is to put right a defect in the Bill——

Hon. Members
One defect?

§ Mr. Willey
The first that has been revealed, in the light of our most careful examination. As the Clause stands, it would be impossible to take into account, in serving an additional notice of assessment, any sum repaid under Clause 54. This is where there has been a mistake of fact and it would make it impossible to serve more than one additional notice. In view of the relief which we are giving in regard to Capital Gains Tax and Estate Duty, this might well arise.

§ Mr. Allason
The Amendment relates to a case in which the Commission might underassess the levy and then try to get some more levy. As the right hon. Gentleman said, they slipped up over this in the original wording. The new wording is satisfactory in its use of the phrase: appearing to the Commission to be the amount required to make good the deficiency". This is what is intended, but the Government have rushed in where angels fear to tread.
They have again tried to define precisely and exactly what that deficiency is, saying: … after taking into account the principal amount specified in the original notice and in any previous notice served under this section and any relief (whether by way of repayment or otherwise) given or required to be given in respect of the levy in question. Therefore, they have now taken into account, first, the possibility that it is not only the first assessment but subsequent assessments of levy which will all total up to narrow the ultimate deficiency, and, second, the fact that there may be a relief.
This, of course, is excellent news, because yesterday we were told that there might be credits which disappeared into thin air. In this case at least, we learn that there is a relief. Even so, the Minister is tempting fate. There is always the possibility that they have forgotten something and the danger in the Bill is that they have attempted to dot every "i": and every time they dot the "i" they drop the "t".