§ Mr. HOUSTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the number of persons in the United Kingdom and Ireland who are liable to pay the Super-tax on incomes between £5,000 and £10,000 per annum, £10,000 and £15,000, £15,000 and £20,000, £20,000 and £25,000, £25,000 and £30,000, £30,000 and £35,000, £35,000 and £40,000, £40,000 and £45,000, £45,000 and £50,000, £50,000 and £60,000, £60,000 and £70,000, £70,000 and £80,000, £80,000 and £90,000, £90,000 and £100,000, £100,000 and £120,000, £120,000 and £130,000, £130,000 and £140,000, £140,000 and £150,000, and the number over £150,000 per annum, the numbers given for those between £5,000 and £10,000 of course including those who pay on larger incomes?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI am not in a position to furnish the hon. Member with the information for which he asks.
§ Sir F. BANBURYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was owing to the blunder of a subordinate official that demand notes for Income Tax usually sent out in December, and followed by a reminder in January, were in many cases not posted this year until 29th March?
2554W
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs is always the case in a year of revaluation of property, the issue of demand notes suffered some general, but unavoidable, delay last year. Notwithstanding this, however, the demand notes for 1910–11 were actually issued, with but few exceptions, by the end of January last.
§ Mr. NIELDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which railway companies and on what dates it was suggested by the Inland Revenue Department that payment of Income Tax due last March might be postponed until the present financial year?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe communication to which the hon. Member refers was made early in March to most of the principal railway companies in London, in the circumstances indicated in the reply given on the 3rd instant to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London.
§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether complaints have been received respecting the delay in dealing with the repayments of Income Tax; will he state what were the number of repayments in arrear in September last, and the number in arrear now; whether the arrear is due in some measure to the lack of experience on the part of the head of the branch; and whether he will consider the desirability of placing the head of such a department a man with large experience, even though he be a member of the second division, instead of an upper division officer with a much shorter service and limited knowledge?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe detailed examination and checking of the enormous mass of repayment claims, amounting to about half a million a year, necessarily involve some delay in dealing with the cases. Every effort is, however, made—and with success—to reduce the delay to a minimum. The number of repayments in arrear in September last was 48,000, and is now 21,000. There is certainly no foundation for the suggestion contained in the third part of the question. As regards the last part of the question, I am not prepared to interfere with the discretion of the chairman of the Board in his organisation of the office.