HC Deb 11 June 1934 vol 290 cc1353-4W

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether, in view of the general undertaking given by the Solicitor-General to the House on 13th June, 1923, he will state what is the practice of the Board of Inland Revenue where a taxpayer has paid Income Tax upon more income than he has received, such Income Tax having been paid otherwise than by direct assessment under Schedule D or E, or under the rules relating thereto;

(2) whether the Board of Inland Revenue retains Income Tax collected indirectly from a taxpayer on more income than a taxpayer has actually received and thereby discriminating in the administration of the Income Tax provisions as between one taxpayer and another;

(3) whether, where a taxpayer has paid Income Tax on more income than he has received within the six years ended 5th April, 1934, and where the provisions of Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1923, do not apply by reason of no assessment having been made, he will undertake that in such a case the Board of Inland Revenue will return to the taxpayer the excess Income Tax collected, and thereby implement the undertaking of the Solicitor-General?


As regards the statement made by the Solicitor-General on 15th June, 1923, I would point out that he was describing the then practice of the Inland Revenue Department in relation to certain cases of overpayment of tax, and his undertaking was that a particular case of direct assessment under Schedule D, which had been quoted in the Debate, would be considered and that if the facts were as stated, repayment would be made in accordance with the practice. As was indicated in the reply given on 18th May last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend, that practice was put on a statutory basis by Section 24 of the Finance Act, 1923. I am not clear as to the precise nature of the cases which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. If he will give me particulars of any such cases, I shall be happy to look into them and communicate with him further.