§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of Inland Revenue are now making valuations in accordance with the decision of Mr. Justice Rowlatt in Whidborne v. the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; and whether he will give instructions that all provisional valuations already made or served which are affected by this judgment may be reopened and adjusted in accordance therewith?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIn the case of provisional valuations now being served, the owner, in view of the extension of time for objecting to valuations, has very full opportunity of submitting or sub stantiating to the Commissioners that proof upon which the site value deduction dealt with in the judgment referred to depends. Of provisional valuations served in the past many have been objected to on the ground that such a deduction should be allowed. In these cases the objections have remained to be dealt with, but I see no reason for reopening valuations which have become final without any claim under this head having been made.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the practice of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue at the present time when making valuations of special properties to include all machinery, fixtures, etc., whether fixed or otherwise, which would pass on a sale of the freehold on an open contract when arriving at the gross and total values under Part I. of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, in accordance with Mr. Justice Scrutton's judgments; and, if not whether he will for the present suspend the service of all provisional valuations affected by these judgments?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI may refer the right hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for the West Division of St. Pancras on the 2nd July, last, from which it will be seen that, broadly speaking, it is the practice to include the value of fixed and attached machinery.