Part of Orders of the Day — Finance Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 16 June 1947.
The object of this new Clause, as my hon. Friend has indicated, is to allow a deduction of ir5 under Rule 9, Schedule E, for any subscription to a recognised society. He does not indicate what a recognised society would be. That, of course, could later on be defined if my right hon. Friend saw his way to accept this proposal that allowances should be given up to £15 for any subscription to a recognised society for the advancement of learning and technology, if such an expenditure has been necessarily incurred or defrayed by the individual concerned. At present this expenditure can be allowed to any taxpayer who is fortunate enough — or unfortunate enough, whichever way you look at it—to be assessed under Schedule D but is not allowed under Schedule E.
The question of the admissibility under Rule 9 of subscriptions to professional societies has been the subject of a case in the High Court. A certain Dr. Tate brought an action against a gentleman named Mr. Simpson connected with the Inland Revenue, and the Judge definitely laid it down—and I quoted from part of his judgment this afternoon on another Clause—that an expenditure of this kind is not to be taken into account. Dr. Tate had a very good case for deducting, as an allowance, all kinds of subscriptions which he was paying, or wanted to pay, to the Royal Society of Medicine, the Society of Medical Officers of Health, the Royal Institute of Public
Health, and the Association of County Medical Officers of Health. The judge said:
I think it is desirable to lay down some principle. I think that all subscriptions to professional societies and taking in of professional literature and all that sort of expense, which enables a man to keep himself fit foe what he is doing, are things which can none of them be allowed.
That is how the law stands.
Supposing my right hon. Friend were to accede to this request, on the face of it a reasonable one. Here is a man engaged in a profession, and he naturally wants to keep himself abreast of all the latest thought in his profession. One way of doing it is to belong to societies catering for his profession, and taking in—by subscribing for—the literature of his craft. There is no reason on ordinary grounds why that should not be put down as necessary expense. But Income Tax has to be founded on broad principles, not on individual cases. We have had reason to realise that earlier this afternoon, when it was my misfortune to indicate that my right hon. Friend could not accept certain new Clauses, not because individual cases of hardship brought to his notice were not worthy of help, but because Income Tax law has to be anchored to certain principles.
Subscriptions of this kind do assist an individual to do his job better, but the principle is not that of the subscriptions, because you cannot hold it there. If you allowed subscriptions to count, you would have to see, as a general principle, that anything that helped a professional man or woman—or any man or womar—to do their job better should rank for Income Tax allowance. That would mean that a trade unionist would definitely claim that his trade union subscription came: within the same category. I could claim that these glasses, which I have had to buy, assist me to do my job better. Most assuredly they do, just as much as his medical journal helps a doctor in iris job The same applies to a man who has to have an artificial limb or some aid to hearing. All these, looked at from one sine—that is sentimentally—are entitled to rank as expenses, certainly as much as those of the individuals who had their case so well put by the hon. Member who moved this new Clause, in that they help a person to do his job better. I am sorry, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is not able to accede to this new Clause for the reasons which I hope will commend themselves to all Members of the Committee.