§ Sir P. Roydsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Allchin versus Corporation of South Shields and to the fact that the decision places local authorities which obtain private Acts containing certain special provisions as to the form of their accounts in a more favourable position as regards Income Tax than local authorities which have no such private Acts; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation with a view to putting all local authorities on an equal footing in this respect without the expenditure of public money and Parliamentary time involved in the promotion of private Acts.
§ Sir J. AndersonI am aware of the effect of the decision in the South Shields case, and propose to include in next year's Finance Bill, but with effect from the beginning of the current Income Tax year 1944 /45, provisions which will give the benefits of that decision to local authorities generally. The promotion of further private Acts for the purpose of bringing authorities within the scope of the decision will therefore be unnecessary.
§ Mr. Stokesasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants are exempt from Income Tax.
§ Sir J. AndersonCivil servants enjoy no exemption from Income Tax, but are liable like anyone else if their incomes exceed the effective exemption limits determined by the various personal allowances. I cannot say how many have incomes below the effective exemption limit.
752W
§ Mr. Mainwaringasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that in several cases the whole of a workman's wage, for one or more weeks, as may be required to meet the sum due for tax purposes, has been deducted; and why the instruction not to deduct an amount of Income Tax due from workmen leaving them with a less amount than was prescribed to take home as wages in a given week, has now been withdrawn.
§ Mr. AsshetonThe cases to which my hon. Friend is referring are, I think, cases in which an employee's code number has been reduced during the year in the light of facts which were not known when the initial coding took place. In such cases the automatic application of the tax tables might have the result of very heavy deductions on the first pay day immediately after the change, and it has been the rule that a reduction of code number should not, be made during the year without the taxpayer's concurrence, the additional tax due being left over to be taken into account in the next year's coding. It appears, however, that some employees have given their concurrence to a change of code number during the year without fully realising the position, and revised instructions have now been issued which will prevent such disproportionately heavy deductions in future.