§ Mr. Joel BarnettI beg to move Amendment No. 45, in page 9, line 38, at end add:
'(c) providing that where a claim is made in respect of a director under this section, he shall be excluded from entitlement to claim under section 227 of the Taxes Act 1970 (Nature and amount of relief for qualifying premiums)'.Clause 15 was slipped in towards the end of Committee stage when the Government had decided that they ought to throw an occasional sop to hon. Members opposite, and this one has been very well received. The insurance companies are preparing for it. The amendment would ensure that a director who benefits under the Clause should not also benefit under Section 227 of the Taxes Act 1970, whereby he is empowered to spend up to £1,500 a year, depending on the size of income, to take a pension policy—which has itself been improved by the Chancellor to enable him also to take a lump sum as well as a pension.Things are looking up for the directors of close companies. We were told earlier how much better it was for a close company under the present Chancellor—for example, under the new corporation tax. But that is another matter. The amendment seeks at least to limit the amount of relief that a controlling director of a close company would be able to obtain. It is reasonably fair that he should not be able to obtain both benefits.
§ Mr. NottThe amendment is unnecessary since what it seeks to achieve is already established law. If a former controlling director is admitted to his company's pension scheme, under the new practice his employment will necessarily become pensionable employment from that time. Under the statutory provisions relating to retirement annuity relief, that relief is not available in respect of earnings from a pensionable office or employment, so the point is already covered.
§ Mr. BarnettI am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I would not have dreamt that the Chancellor would be so far-seeing.
In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.