* THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)In the absence of my noble friend the Earl of Bradford I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a question, of which my noble friend has given private notice—namely, whether, in the event of the 291 Commissioners of Inland Revenue sending a valuer of their own to value property for estate duty purposes, they are entitled to withhold from the person from whom duty is claimed information with respect to the figures of such valuation; and, if so, whether it is fair and equitable that the Commissioners should do so.
§ * THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)The Commissioners of Inland Revenue act, for the purposes of fixing the estate duty of a property, under the 7th Section of the Finance Act of 1894. That section provides that the capital value of the property shall be what, in their opinion, it will fetch in the open market. There are provisions for enabling them to employ valuers, if they think necessary, to enable them to form that opinion. There is nothing in the section which compels them to accept that valuation, and they are in no way bound to inform the persons of whom the duty is claimed of the figures of such valuation. It is, in fact, in the nature of advice upon which they may arrive at whatever decision they think just. Therefore the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he can see no equitable reason against their declining to give that information.
* THE EARL OF MORLEYI think the answer is very unsatisfactory. As I understand, the successor to property has to send in his valuation. This applies specially to works of art and matters of that kind. If the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are not satisfied with that valuation, they send down their own valuer. If that valuer values at a lower price than the successor's own valuer, surely the successor ought to have the benefit. If the valuation made by the valuer appointed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is higher than the valuation of the successor, the latter is compelled to pay a higher succession duty. The attitude of the Inland Revenue in this matter is very much like the old game of heads I win, tails you lose.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYIf I understand the matter rightly, this seems to me most iniquitously unfair. Having been responsible, with others, for the Finance Act under which all this is done, 292 I am not at all disposed to press the Government to fritter away the provisions of that Act, but, at the same time, I do not think it is reasonable that the Treasury should have a standard of right and wrong which is not the standard of a man in ordinary transactions. The point raised is not an infringement of the provisions of the Bill, neither would it weaken those provisions, and I therefore hope that it will receive more consideration.
§ THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY)I differ from the noble Earl, inasmuch as I am not responsible for the Act in any way; but I think the noble Earl is a little harsh upon the Inland Revenue, and for this reason. If it were true, as he says, that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue were following a course which no ordinary gentleman would follow in his private affairs, I think it is probable that they would come within the reach of the courts of law. If they did come within the reach of the courts of law I imagine that some patriotic citizen would bring the point practically to the test. I do not know whether it is a fact or not, but it is certainly very desirable that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should not be, in the view of the country, exposed to the censure which the noble Earl has passed upon them.