§ 26 and 27. Mr. Barnettasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what instructions he has given to the Inland Revenue on discretion to be used in allowing taxpayers the choice of alternatives open to them in opting for one or other method of calculating capital gains;
(2) by what authority Her Majesty's inspectors of taxes require a taxpayer formally to elect one method of calculation of a capital gain, when the inspector proposes to prove that such method would be less advantageous to the taxpayer; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. TaverneA taxpayer who has a statutory option is free to exercise it or not, as he thinks best. It is for him to decide. Inspectors of Taxes cannot and do not require taxpayers to opt for one method rather than another.
§ Mr. BarnettOn the choice of either the apportionment basis or the value at April, 1965, is not the Inland Revenue being somewhat bloody-minded in insisting that the taxpayer makes a choice? Should he not be allowed the opportunity to make the formal choice after agreement with the inspector of taxes on the fairest method for the taxpayer concerned?
§ Mr. TaverneIn principle, obviously the 1965 valuation would be right. It is to solve the difficult questions of valuation and the enormous administrative complexities involved that the time apportionment basis was provided with the option for 1965 as an alternative. If this option was revocable, precisely the same valuation difficulties and administrative complexities would again arise.