§ Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the case of children under the age of 18 years covered by covenants in 1967–68, what he estimates to be the cost in 1967–68 and 1972–73, respectively, regarding the saving of estate duty by grandparents; and how many of these children in 1967–68 had parents with an income over £4,000, £7,500, £10,000 and £15,000, respectively.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinThere is no saving of estate duty by making payments under covenant as opposed to other forms of gift.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the case of children under the age of 18 years covered by covenants in 1967–68, what he estimates to be the cost in 1967–68 and 1972–73, respectively, when the child claims repayment of allowances; and how many of 38W these children in 1967–68 had parents with an income over £4,000, £7,500, £10,000 and £15,000, respectively.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinThe information available is not in such a form as to enable an estimate to be made.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the case of children under the age of 18 years covered by covenants in 1967–68, what he estimates to be the cost in 1967–68 and 1972–73, respectively, regarding life assurance relief on covenant moneys accruing to the parent; and how many of these children in 1967–68 had parents with an income over £4,000, £7,500, £10,000 and £15,000, respectively.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinI am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind. No. life assurance relief is due on covenant moneys.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the case of children under the age of 18 years covered by covenants in 1967–68, what he estimates to be the cost in 1967–68 and 1972–73, respectively, regarding income tax and surtax relief accruing to grandfathers; and how many of these children in 1967–68 had parents with an income over £4,000, £7,500, £10,000 and £15,000, respectively.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinThis information is not available. In any case, surtax relief is not due in respect of covenants executed after 6th April, 1965.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following the reintroduction of the non-aggregation rule, where a grandparent with a total taxable income of £10,000 in 1972–73 makes a covenant payment of £800 a year for a grandchild, what will be the cost to the Exchequer involved regarding the net payment by the grandparent together with the annual net receipt by parent and child where these were treated as one unit.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinI am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, following the reintroduction of the non-aggregation rule, where a grandparent with a total taxable income of £10,000 in 1972–73 makes a covenant 39W payment of £800 a year for a grandchild, what will be the cost to the Exchequer involved in the net payment by the grandparent together with the net annual receipt by parent and child treated as separate tax units.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinThe cost, if any, would depend on the circumstances but would not exceed £66 a year.
§ Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the case of children under 18 years covered by unit trust investment schemes and insurance trustee and endowment schemes for minors, what will be the cost to the Exchequer in loss of income tax, surtax and estate duty from the reintroduction of the disaggregation rule; and how many of these children have parents with income of over £2,000, £5,000 and £10,000 a year, respectively.
§ Mr. Patrick JenkinIn general these schemes were not affected by the aggregation provisions. The yield of estate duty will not in any case be directly affected by the repeal of the aggregation provisions.