asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the prejudicial effect on trading due to company investments in State securities being regarded as a reduction of
I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statements I made on this matter on 20th November and 2nd December last in reply to Questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery). I may perhaps call the attention of my hon. and gallant Friend to the fact that it is now open to any company or other trader to purchase Tax Reserve Certificates which, in so far as they are accepted in payment of tax by the company or trader, carry interest and count as capital employed in the business for the purposes of Excess Profits Tax.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any appeal against the decisions of the various purchasing Departments in fixing prices for war contracts; and whether he will reconsider this policy which may react unfairly on the firms concerned in regard to Excess Profits Tax and the postwar refund of 20 per cent.?
I am not sure that I follow precisely what my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. Contract terms, which include prices, are settled in negotiation between the purchasing Department and contractors on the basis that they should be fair and reasonable to both parties.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) whether, in view of the fact that Sir Alexander Gibb & Partners received reimbursements to the extent of £358,000 from December, 1940, until 31st March, 1942, this firm is liable for Excess Profits Tax for the period in question;
(2) whether, in view of the fact that Messrs. T. P. Bennett and Son received fees amounting to £,22,242 for the calendar year 1941, this firm is liable for Excess Profits Tax for the period in question?
I cannot furnish any information in reply to either of these Questions, for it would be contrary to the statutory obligations of secrecy to disclose any information regarding the tax liability of individual taxpayers.
While appropriating what the right hon. Gentleman had said, may I ask whether it is not a fact that the gentleman referred to in Question 48 has a partner occupying a position in a Government Department and that, in relation to Question 49, the firm mentioned has a partner holding a position connected with the distribution of contracts?