The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-10 00:00:00

Deduct loss sustained under Schedule—

I). on trade, &c., ascertained and confirmed by Commis- On
sioners

Real income •
And further, to provide that in cake ell ofthe said, &IL"
on Schedules A. B. C. and E. shall have-been paw t 4
Commissioners shall certify to the proper parde4
amount overpaid, who, on production of sueh'eertii#,'!„.
shall repay the same." If it was the -Object of thel
vernnsent to tax income and not loss, he . conic!'
why they should object to this clause, in_ whichifei
taken every possible precaution against fraud. to
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-00 be
oppose the clause, because he • apprehended t.r--1
:adoption of it in the Bill would requirethat all the
visions of the Bill should be: altered ; and it 'visit
moreover entirely defeat the object of the Bill;:bttPt''
dering it ,impossible to raise the revenue'require4,lo he
,:d
raised under the Act: Notwithstanding what had fall
from the. Hon. Gentleman, he would cobtend that
would open a door to fraud. Mr.- Pitt's first
• tbe
1798; was founded on the principle erabodiedertte
clause of the Hon. Gentleman ; and to .180.41ng
a duty of 10 per cent., a revenue of 4,6019,00.4114".°1"ii
had been raised. The present principle .. Imd:reti;
adopted in ISO 3, and in the following year, with tt.a°
of 5 per cent., a revenue of 3,600,0001... had beenllo,.,
The proposition of the lion. Gentleman, woeki"aisc'_Le
quire a full development of the actual income of
individual, which would be avoided by the
the Government 'plan of taxing property at' it.l kcetio,
Mr: WARD said it was perfeetly: natural fors
Chancellor of the Exchequer to try_ to., get AsSr 000
money a,s he possibly could, but he ought.--11b-irfiggo
consider whether he would receive the tnereti jitsga
If a man proved that lie sustained a loss,. and .atikl j'
the Income-tax, he paid that tax upon a nomitrOiner,,,,e,
Now this appeared to him (Mr. Ward) se, great injOrn:
If the man said he had sustained a lofts, he' hiaLn,l'in.
dergo a most searching investigation before' the'"),*
missioners, and no man would attempt that 'OW..
had good grounds to go upon.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUO47,._ o
still repeat his objection that it ii!otild ope,OF-
fraud, as it was impossible to ascertain the exact laa°l/I"s'
of profit and loss of any person.
Mr. B: WOOD said the clause he had proPes*"` n 0
not interfere in any way with the Bill. If tifell'ercV
sustained loss under one schedule, he merely wishehis
set off against the profits of another; and, in doing T,,
he mutt -submit his affairs to the' investigation Of 0,1
Commissioners. Where then could there be any 'filt„f,
committed- `impossible, It _ was Mpossible, as he courted inquilfd
He (Mr. B. Wood) thought the Right Hon. Gentian'
-eould-not-htive read the clause.
Sir -R. PEEL said that, supposing a person had
be
10,0001. a year, received from his tenants, and that
ot
had a farm that would bring him in 1,0001. a yeror;
' that he kept it •in his own hands, and farmed it bi.a.l*l
but being -abed farmer; he lost 3,0001, they woeldi: Pt,
set that against the amount received from his tOn.till
therefore, the principle upon which they went tfrk 1 41
not carry out. They:all recollected that, under.
tax, great frauds were committed, and-he hoped the
Gentleman would again take the subject into -lie, 0,,e
deration, and that the House would hesitate before
adopted this proposition.
Lord HO WICK said that the principle of the p road
sition was in some degree recognized by the 8i11,211,b0
incomes under 1501. were exempt. He agreed Witti-ftee
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tb the
wording of the clause needed some correction, t
• dui
fully agreed in the principle. It was perfectly triOe''
• amass,
it was difficult to ascertain the amount of profit' 01e• e 1
but the Bill already proceeded on the principle tb
were to ascertain the amount of profit and loss.— -(2,-,gset
hear.) If a man had two manufactories, he coat'; r
the loss from one against the profit of another, -14..qiie
man had a mine and a manufactory, he could noli-seb,i' 0
loss of one against the profit of another.
..Now-tbis.;ii
not just. Ile should therefore support the prop 04?
without- hesitation.
b 0
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER took -t y
case of a man possessed of a mine in Mexico and a 112 V
nufactory in England; it would not be fair to set the 09
of one against the profit of another. -- - -
Lord HOWICK said the proposition would not el'
tend to property out of the country. __
Mr. Ald. HUMPHERY thought the principle o.e
etiy
empting the man who sustained a loss-from tra-40,
hada 150/. a-year in the funds, should be fullycariiect ed •
._e Mr. A. CHAPMAN said that seldom as he differed
from the Right Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, for
must support the proposition of the, Hon. maniket
SoAfter a suthwark, as he
on believed it to be founded in jUstlcere u to
hort cversation, strangers were order
withdraw, and the House divided, when there appOretil
For the clause 66

Against the clause
Majority against the clause ~
Mr. GILL then rose to move the amendments $
new clauses of which he had given notice, half
for their object to capitalise all incomes not derivitivy
landed or funded property, and to charge five per 0,...,1'
on such capital as the ground-work of the Property
Having explained the object of the amendments; be
stated he should take the sense of the House on
first one, that it might decide the acceptation or -7:1..-
tion of the others. The amendment was as follpr
Ni 1. Schedule (A), Rule 2, page 33; line 17, al.Kjiii3O
word "limited," to insert—" Provided always, ta,lue
every Case where the party to be assessed has it life
terest only in such profits, the value of such life inter-`4f
shall be ascertained, and the amount'thereof be deertto
tirbe'itr'inUCh-CaPital :—And for the purposes of too,
Act the profits to be assessed shall be computed at -03
rate of five pounds for every hundred pounds of s's
capital."
•• • • The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER tb°4llO
,441
the Hon. Member had brought forward his amending
rather with a view to make his opinions public Oar
embody them in the Act. He must oppose the anol°ll..
ments.

Mr. HUME thought the Right Hon. Gentlentt
when imposing a tax on the whole community, °V
not to give such an answer if he was not prepare
be
go into an examination of the propositions. If,tv
Hon. Member divided the House, he would-. Offal°i
divide with him, in order to mark his sense of the injil!'
tice of the Bill.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman Humpherlo;;
Lord Ebrington, and Mr. Gill in reply, the 11(41,'
divided, when there appeared—
For the Amendment 36 - , ..ie
Against it • 183 - ''"
Majority against the Amendment --W:AA
The other amendments, of which the Hon. CTli,
man had given notice, were next severally put altd:#
i
gatived without a division. cts
•• a 0)
The Bill was then ordered to be engrosled
:hird time on Friday next.
In answer to a question from Mr. HUME,
Sir R. PEEL said, that if there .was any objection
the third reading of the Bill, before the tariff„,," ti
through Committee, he had no objection to its .postr"-
.611
ment.

'quit!
luded.
Jphin-
tiberi

w.
11(1 be
t, NV°
ge

tiOn Of
is
[NOW

se Nr
of
Of red
iuseetils
Pis*

log
• IC°
10▪ 0
£4OO

14.1 d
oar t
410 V

tot el.

of eat
ed
iffered
be
er,
for
ice•
Ted to
ser

10415
10
bat to

eraon'
rug"
rea
Ef
injor

►herl'.