§ Colonel DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if tax will be recoverable against a backer of horses who fails to pay his account to a bookmaker for debts made on horses either on a racecourse or away from same; or whether the bookmaker will be responsible for the payment of this tax even considering the backer does not pay the amount of his original bet;
(2) whether, in the case of a backer of a horse on a racecourse making a credit bet with a bookmaker on which the bookmaker pays the tax on the bet, and the backer, in the case of a loss, does not eventually pay the bookmaker the amount of the bet, the bookmaker can claim a rebate from the Inland Revenue authorities for the tax so paid, or will he introduce legislation to make this amount of tax paid on the backer's behalf recoverable by law;
(3) in the cases of disputed bets in which bookmakers repudiate liability or even do not pay the amount of winnings claimed by a backer on a horse he claims to have backed, if tax will be chargeable against the backer or bookmaker; and if this tax so charged will be recoverable?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe proposals contained in the Finance Bill relating to the Betting Duty follow the precedent of other indirect taxes. Liability for payment of Betting Duty to the Crown rests solely with the bookmaker with whom the bet is made, and duty must be paid by him on every bet made with him irrespective of the subsequent relations between 3013W bookmaker and backer. The Finance Bill is not concerned with the means whereby a bookmaker may recoup himself for the duty which he is liable to pay, and no further legislation appears to be called for.