§ Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total yield of development land tax to date; what is the total administrative costs of collection, including work inside local valuation offices as well as in the Development Land Tax Office; what is the ratio of yield to cost; and how this compares with the equivalent ratio for (a) income tax, (b) corporation tax and (c) capital gains tax.
191W
§ Mr. Denzil Davies, pursuant to his reply [Official Report, 2nd May 1978; Vol. 949, cc. 99–100], gave the following information:
The yield to 31st March 1978 was £8.2 million. In addition, it is estimated that over the same period the benefit to acquiring authorities from the net of tax arrangements was approximately £10.6 million.
The annual cost of the Development Land Tax Office and of connected work within valuation offices is now estimated as £1,625,000. The ratio of cost to total yield—including the benefit to authorities under the net of tax arrangements for 1977–78—is estimated to be 11.8 per cent. Comparable figures for income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax are not available. I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 37 of the 120th Report of the Board of Inland Revenue (Cmnd. 7092) for the most recent information of cost/yield ratios for taxes on income, profits and capital gains.
§ Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to announce the results of his consultations with the trade unions regarding the recommendations of the Inland Revenue staffing survey that the Development Land Tax Office should be reduced from the 149 in post on 27th February to below 120; and whether he will make a statement on his policy on this matter, including the date by which the target should be achieved in co-operation with the trade unions.
§ Mr. Denzil Davies, pursuant to his reply [Official Report, 2nd May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 100], gave the following information:
The Board of Inland Revenue is at present considering the views of the trade unions concerned. The aim of the Board, as for all its offices, is to achieve the right level of staffing to cope with the work load which, as noted in my answer of 2nd March last—[Vol. 945, cols. 350–51]—has increased since the survey took place.
§ Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will set out in tabular form (a) for the whole period since August 1976, and (b) for the financial year 1977–78 (i) the total number of disposals notified to the Development 192W Land Tax Office (ii) the number of assessments made (iii) the number made but subsequently cancelled (iv) the total tax assessed (v) the total paid (vi) the total cancelled and (vii) the ratio of assessments (discounting cancelled assessments) to staff in post.
§ Mr. Denzil Davies, pursuant to his reply [Official Report, 2nd May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 100–1], gave the following information:
1st August 1976 to 31st March 1978 1977–78 Number of disposals directly notified to the Development Land Tax Office. 8,169 4,889 Number of assessments made. 1,238 1,193 Number of assessments totally discharged. 80 80 Assessed tax £20.6 million £19.6 million Assessed tax paid £12.8 million £12.4 million Assessed tax totally discharged. £1.2 million £1.2 million Ratio of assessments to staff in post (discounting totally discharged assessments). 8:1 7:1