HC Deb 14 May 1991 vol 191 cc104-5W
Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what basis he has calculated that building societies would not be repaid £250 million if the House accepts his proposal, retrospectively, to reverse the House of Lords decision in the Woolwich case.

Mr. Maples

I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 22 April, at columns300–1.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether building societies have agreed that the 1986 change in accounting for tax does not mean they have paid extra tax.

Mr. Maples

It would not be appropriate to comment on statements made by individual building societies about their tax affairs.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what response or acknowledgement has been given to the demand on 25 October 1990 for repayment of tax unlawfully demanded from a building society, following the judgment in the Woolwich case;

(2) how much tax has been received each financial year and for each financial year from building societies since 1983–84; how much was paid with the qualification that the payment was made under protest; how much is now known to have been demanded unlawfully; and how much has been repaid.

Mr. Maples

It would not be appropriate to comment on the tax affairs of individual building societies.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the probable cost of acknowledging letters(a) directly and (b) via an hon. Member to each or any member of a building society adversely affected by clause 50 of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Maples

The cost of replying to letters, whether received directly, or through hon. Members, depends upon the complexity of the issues raised and the research necessary to deal with them.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which building societies did not challenge the double taxation damand under the 1986 legislation on building societies.

Mr. Maples

The 1986 building societies legislation did not involve double taxation. It would not be appropriate to comment on the tax affairs of individual building societies.