The Sun.
London, England, 1851-09-02 00:00:00

INCOME-TAX COMMITTEE.
(Continued from The Sun of Aug. 22.)
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.—Are the Com-
mittee to understand you to mean that there are only
9,700 persons receiving dividends at the Bank whose
incomes are under 1501., so far as you know ?—No ;
that is only a return for one year of amounts exempt
in one year.
Can you state from any papers which you have the
whole number of persons receiving dividends at the
Bank who have been exempted from the tax on ac-
count of their having proved to your satisfaction,
that they had incomes less than 1501. a year ?—ln the
Beek 29,273, and in the National Debt Office 8,G51,
making altogether somewhere about 38,000.
Mr. J. WILSON—That number of 38,000 applies to
persons at one time ?—Yes, at this time. I believe
the account is made up this day.
CHANCELLOR of. the EXCIIEQUER—In point of fact,
that is the, nuMbers'of, persons whom you believe at
the peeseeeeep:Oneo be exempt from deductions on
the payment oP Wthefrifi dividends, on account of having
incomes leis thin 1501. a year ?—Yes ; there must be
some uncertainty about it ; we cannot have it quite
accurate.
Mr. J. WILSON—You have stated that those returns
are not made to the Bank perfect at each quarter, but
only the new cases P—Only the new cases.
Suppose that a man has been exempted to your
satisfaction two years ago, arid suppose that in the
meantime he may have become possessed either of a
larger quantity of stock, or of any other source of
income which would make his whole income more
than 1501. a year, and therefore not entitle him to the
exemption, have you any means of revising the ex-
emption which you have already granted from time
to time, or does it go on as an allowance from year to
year ?—lt goes on; we have no means of finding it
out except he choses to tell us.
Then a man may have been exempted in 1842 upon
an interest in the funds to the extent of 1451. a year ;
he may have acquired property during the next six
months which may have made his income above 1501.
a year, and he may have gone on with his exemption
to the present day upon the original 1451. ?-11e cer-
tainly may.
And there is no means of knowing that ?—There
are no means of knowing it. Many of those cases
would excite suspicion in the minds of the examining
clerks, and they would be returned to the surveyor,
who would cell upon the party to reprove.his income.
That would only be in very striking cases 9—ln
striking cases, where there was something in the re-
turn leading us to expect that the man had exceeded
his income ; in such a case as you have put, for
example, where the amount approached very near the
limit of 150/.
Suppose it was 1001. In point of fret, have you
any means of revising those original statements upon
which the exemption is maileY—Ne.
Would that not be cured by making the Exemp-
tions annually ?—Yes ; but then it would give the
claimants a vast deal of increased trouble, and give
us a vast deal of increased trouble. In fact,
the present system of sending a list to the Bank was
adopted in consequence of the immense number of
claims which came into the office originally when the
system which you mention was in operation.
Lord 11. VANE—In fact, you found it impossible to
carry it out ?—We could not get through the busi-
ness without a very much increased number of clerks
and NVO got permission from the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer at that time to adopt this course.
Mr. J. Wresoss—Then it is quite clear that under
the course which is at present pursued there is an
enormous opening for fraud—that is, for exemptions
being continued to which persons are no longer en-
titled ?—There is. We have no means of positively
ascertaining it, but our impression is that that fraud
is not carried on to a great extent, because in very
many cases parties have written to us to say that they
are no longer entitled to the exemption, and desire to
be charged.
Mr. HENLEY—Your answer to one of the questions
of the Honourable Member near me I think is not
correct. He put a question to you with reference to
an increased amount of stock. Do you think that if
a man has 1451. of income arising from the funds,
and he ad is to his account, making it 155/., the Bank
would pay him the dividend upon the additional 101.
without deduction ?—No, certainly not ; he would
convict himself by that.
Mr. J. WILSON—If the increase had taken place
upon stock it would be apparent upon the face of the
Bank books, and the thing would be discovered ?
Yes.

Ch AIRMAN—Do you make inquiry whether the
amount of stock has changed in the name of the indi-
vidual who has been excused; if you find that any
alteration in the amount of stock has taken place do
you require new
,proofs ?—lf any alteration in the
amount of stock took pace the Bank themselves would
immediately put it in charge, because it would not
then correspond with the sum in our list ; they would
deduct it.
Then on every change in the amount of stock after
you had sent in the list the parties would be charged ?
—They would be charged.
Then are we to understand that if you give in the
list an individual to be exempted in 1849, he would
be exempted in 1850 and 1851 ?—Unless his stock
was changed.
There is no inquiry ?—No inquiry.
Mr. HENLEY—I think you have stated, with re-
ference to this question of the exemption being per-
manent, excepting under special circumstances which
come to your notice, that that was obliged to be done
on account of the inconvenience which you and the
office were subjected to, and which the public were
subject to ?—Yes.
At the first the practice was not so to do ?—lt
was not.
You stated in the beginning of your evidence that
you are one of a board consisting of three, and that
this particular branch of the service is entrusted to
your charge ?--It is.
Do you act as a board in any way ?—I do some•
times sit upon appeals when one of the other Com-
missioners happens to be absent, but very seldom.
Then, in point of fact, the decisions which are come
to and given as the decisions of a board of three are
the decisions of one Commissioner ?—Yes.
What are the duties entrusted to the other two
gentlemen P—They are entirely under the same
Schedule (D) ; their business is to make assessments
under Schedule (D), and hear appeals.
Do they sit two together to hoar those appeals, or
are they subdivided again ?—They sit together.
What happens in the case of a difference of opinion ?
—I have on one or two occasions been called in as
an umpire; I believe, in the whole course of my
practice, that has never happened but twice.
In point of fact, then, the other appellate business
under Schedule (D) is confided to two gentlemen out
of the three ?--It is.
With respect to the 29 clerks whom you have
shta
spoken of, are their services confined to your depart-
ment of the board, or do they act for the whole board ?
departments—'They
ou re
have
stated
eed confined
the
to
clerksclaims o
a
repayment to have
been about 69,000 in the first year of the present
assessment ?—Yes.
own.rtm
Yent ; the other
What portion of those 69,000 claims come before
you personally ?—I should think very few ; not above
300 or 400 at the outside, I should think.
In the course of the year P—ln the course of the
year ; all the rest were settled by the clerks.
They were mere matters of course, and came within
certain known rules, and the clerks decided them at
once ?—Exactly so.
The cases of small difficulty were referred to the
mfy their
fordep
chief clerks ?—Yes.
And those of greater difficulty were referred to
you ?—Yes.
The latter number amounted, you think, out of the