§ Mr. GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that while the Commissioners of Income Tax are paying in respect of the year 1908–9 sums which under the decision in Smith v. Lion Brewery prove to have been wrongfully charged and collected in respect of Income Tax, they are confining such re- 1484W payments to cases whose notice of appeal against the charge was lodged; whether he is aware that in cases whose payment was made under protest but without formal notice of appeal repayment is being refused; whether he is further aware that in many cases, pending the decision in Smith v. Lion Brewery Company, arrangements were made with surveyors of taxes whereby, although no notice of appeal was given, the tax in question was not paid pending the final decision in Smith v. Lion Brewery Company; and whether, in order to secure equality of treatment, he will take steps to secure that in the cases where payment was made under protest repayment of the overcharge will be made?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first and second parts of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As to the third part, where the duty was allowed to stand over pending the decision of the House of Lords in Smith v. Lion Brewery Company, notice of appeal was recorded by the surveyors of taxes and such cases have been dealt with accordingly. I am unable to accede to the suggestion contained in the last part of the question.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Messrs. Mew, Langton and Co., the proprietors of the Royal Brewery, Isle 1485W of Wight, were assessed for Income Tax for the year 1908–9 upon a sum which included £1,181 1s. l0d. allowed by that firm to the tenants of the brewery in respect of the compensation charges; whether the tax upon this sum was paid under protest, the firm contending that it was not liable to taxation; whether it has since been held by the House of Lords in the case of Smith v. Lion Brewery that the contention of the firm was right but that, notwithstanding several applications have been made, the amount paid in respect of this sum by the firm has not been refunded; and, if so, what action does he propose to take in the matter?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the remainder of the question, the necessary steps for appealing against assessments, as provided for by Sections 57, 58, and 59 of the Taxes Management Act, 1880, were not taken by Messrs. Mew, Langton, and Co., and the matter is not one in which I can interfere.