§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that a firm of Scottish solicitors who paid estate duty on an inventory of an estate, and who, after receiving the inventory back duly stamped, accidentally destroyed it or lost it, were compelled by the Inland Revenue to again pay the duty on a duplicate of the inventory, although the Inland Revenue did not dispute that the duty had been already paid; whether there is any authority for such an exaction; and whether, in view of the fact that the general application of such a principle might be attended with serious consequences to the legal profession, he will promise legislation, if such be necessary, whereby the Inland Revenue officials will be enabled to stamp a duplicate inventory without requiring a second payment of duty?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy attention has been drawn to the case referred to, but the first part of my hon. friend's question hardly states the facts correctly. The case is not one in which, duty in respect of a particular estate has within the knowledge of the Inland Revenue Department been paid and yet has been required to be paid again. The true aspect of the matter is that a document has been stamped with 30s. and then has been lost by the parties. The Inland Revenue have no knowledge that the stamped document which has been lost related to the particular estate in respect of which a stamped inventory is required. With regard to the second and third parts of the Question, there is no provision of the Law for allowance of stamps which are not presented for cancellation; and I do not consider that a change of the Law on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend would be desirable.