Imperial Politics.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXIX, Issue 71, 15 July 1914, Page 5

Imperial Politics.

PARTY ANTICIPATIONS. WEST BIRMINGHAM SEAT. [By Electric Telegraph—Copyright] [United Press Association.] (Received 9.0 a.m.) London, July 14. Mr Austen Chamberlain was returned for West Birmingham unopposed. ! NO DISSOLUTION.

The Unionists anticipate a dissolution before November owing to the difficulties which are likely to arise over the Irish problem, and the differences in the Liberal party in connection with finance.

It is officially stated that the Liberals scout the idea.

THE FINANCE BILL. London, July 14. In the House of Comomns, speakinig on the Finance Bill debate, Mr Worthington Evans said that Mr Lloyd George .expected to realise a million from those escaping payment of income-tax owing to the arrangements under which they left their incomes arising from investments abroad for the benefit of the colonies. The amendment did not affe«t colonial loans, because the dividends were sent to Great Britain. Th« clause as drawn up would not tax th» rich man. Mr Evans detailed several methods of possible evasion, including the formation of small limited liability companies which would not declare dividends. Mr Lloyd George'* clause, however, would seriously affect a large class of colonial financiers on their return to the Motherland. There were many planters, farmers and ranchers returning to Britain who made large incomes on relatively small capital, but used ' the great proportion of their incomes for extension of their business in the dominions aad colonies, yet they were taxed *» if they were entitled to spend the whole of their incomes in Britain. Th© dominions were already levying in-come-tax upon those incomes which Mr Lloyd George intended to plunder. He contended that it was highly desirable to invest in estates within th» Empire.

Mr Cassell urged the exemption of the British Empire, quoting a precedent in the Finance Act of 1849.

Other speakers emphasised tk« hardships of insurance companies. Mr A. Williamson said Mr Lloyd George ran a risk" of striking a good many people who were conducting legitimate business who had left thoir money abroad for the purpose of carrying on business. Mr Molteno declared that the essential nature of the proposal was to , tax property in the jurisdiction of another Government. That was a delicate proceeding, and he was afraid it would cause considerable ill-will in the colonies.

Mr Prettyman said the clause was very complicated. It might involve Britain in serious complications with the colonies. The foreigner escaped the double tax, but the colonial only escaped while still resident in the colonies.

Sir J. A. Simon held that if it could Be done with reasonable effae* tiveness there was no sort of income which moro obviously ought to be taxed than income from investments abroad which were kept abroad because the owners did not need to spend them in Britain. He added that the Government proposed to make it clear that as it was now going to tax foreign incomes from year to year, though unremitted. The taxpayer would not also be liable to bo taxed again when the accumulation* were remitted. The clause was an experiment, but the Government denied' that the clause' was devised in order to favor foreigners, nor would the insurances companies suffer.

After a division on Mr Evans' amendment, Mr Lloyd George moved an amendment providing that companies and persons who hare been relying upon income abroad in pasts years should start with a clean sheet. Several members of hoth parties said the clause was absurd and badly drawn. The debate was automatically closured, and the amendment was carried by 270 to 190. Clauses six, seven, and eight were closured, and were not discussed.