§ Mr. David Mitchellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will accord the same treatment in respect of tax found unpaid for past years on proprietors of small firms, subject to the Inland Revenue's special in-depth investigations, as is now being accorded to casual workers on Fleet Street newspapers; and if not give reasons for his decision.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 16 March.
§ Mr. Wakehamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Fleet Street casual workers are employees or self-employed for taxation purposes; and if he has any plans to reclassify them, as in the case of the divers.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Wakehamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions were held with the National Society of Operative Printers and Assistants, the National Graphical Association, the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades, the Newspaper Proprietors' Association, the Inland Revenue Staff Federation and the Inland Revenue prior to the announcement of the tax amnesty for Fleet Street casual workers.
442W
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Wakehamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what section of what Act the Inland Revenue is empowered to grant tax amnesties.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Wakehamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has plans to grant tax amnesties to groups of workers other than the Fleet Street casuals.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Wakehamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to recover tax owed by Fleet Street casual workers from the newspaper proprietors.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Wakehamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what sections of the Taxes Acts the Inland Revenue was acting in granting a tax amnesty to casual workers of Fleet Street newspapers.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Gorstasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the tax amnesty recently granted by the Inland Revenue to casual workers in Fleet Street was negotiated with a trade union acting on behalf of its members; if so, with which trade union or unions; whether any casual workers not belonging to a trade union are involved in the amnesty; and how many casual workers are estimated to be covered by the amnesty.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Gorstasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent Ministers were involved in, or consulted about, the discussions which led to the Inland Revenue 443W granting a tax amnesty to casual workers in Fleet Street.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Gorstasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assurances have been given to the Inland Revenue that there will be no further fraudulent tax practices by casual workers in Fleet Street; in what form such assurances have been given; and what steps his Department is taking to ensure that no large group of taxpayers organises itself for the purpose of defrauding the Inland Revenue.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Gorstasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated loss of revenue that is likely to result from the tax amnesty granted by the Inland Revenue to casual workers in Fleet Street; and what was the estimated cost of recovering the unpaid arreas of tax if they had not been the subject of the amnesty.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Gorstasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the tax amnesty recently granted by the Inland Revenue to casual workers in Fleet Street has any precedent (a) when there has been prima facie evidence that a fraud has been perpetrated, (b) when the arrangement has been made between a trade union and the Inland Revenue and (c) between the Inland Revenue and any other organisation; and on what previous occasions such arrangements have been made.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Gorstasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify the section of the relevant statute under which the Inland Revenue has granted a tax amnesty to casual workers in Fleet Street who have fraudulently falsified their tax returns; whether the statute gives the Inland Revenue the discretion to ignore fraudulence; and whether it is the sole responsibility of the Inland Revenue to 444W institute legal proceedings in matters of tax fraudulence or whether the agreement of other agencies is required.
§ Mr. Robert SheldonI shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible.
§ Mr. Higginsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the Inland Revenue notice regarding a tax amnesty to members of trade unions working in Fleet Street on a casual basis did not mention all the proposed concessions set out in the letter sent from the Inland Revenue to the unions concerned; and, in particular, why it did not state that in addition to other concessions it was not proposed to charge tax on savings income which had not been properly declared.
§ Mr. Robert Sheldon, pursuant to his reply [Official Report, 16 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 369], gave the following information:
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the leaflet distributed to casual workers in Fleet Street during the period prior to the introduction of the new arrangements. This leaflet set out an offer by the Inland Revenue to mitigate its full demands for back years on condition that the individual in question made himself known to the Revenue before 6 April 1979 and fully co-operated in answering any further inquiries. It did not include a proposal to disregard tax on undeclared savings income because, except in the case of trifling amounts, there is no such intention.