INCOME TAX IN ALTRINCHAM BEFORE
THE FIRST WORLD WAR
Stephen Matthews
June
2008
This
paper is based upon three Inland Revenue notebooks, salvaged by the author,
long after they should have been thrown away under normal Departmental
rules. Their survival depends upon the
fact that if you put something in a store room and leave it, it will stay there
until the room is needed for some other purpose!1
In
the early years of this century, Altrincham does not
seem to have merited a tax office of its own but formed a part of
The
notebooks themselves are far from a complete record of the Surveyors' activity
but before looking at them more closely it would be as well to clarify the
roles of the various parties. Assessments were allowed or made by the Additional
Commissioners, then as now a lay Tribunal of local people. The General Commissioners heard appeals
against those assessments. The Surveyor was the predecessor of the Inspector
that we know now, the title being changed after the First World War in a
general retitling as a reward for war time effort.
His function was different, for he acted as a monitor upon the efforts of the
Commissioners. Although the Surveyor
proposed a figure to be assessed, the power to make assessments in his own name
was not given to the re-named Inspector until 1964.
There
were also Inspectors, in Somerset House, to whom the Surveyor reported,
notably, in this context, when there were Back Duty Settlements to be made.
The
main tax record would have been the annual assessment books to which each entry
is cross referenced and there were certainly other books, as we shall see. They
have not survived but were destroyed when they should have been. Of the three
that I have, two are described as 'Surveyor's Notebook' and the description on
the inside covers shows that they are a record of
'All
inquiries not recorded in the Schedule D assessments, and all out-door
inspections relating to income tax; and should contain notes of the personal
inquiries made by the Surveyor with regard to new or additional liabilities,
and decreased returns, together with the results thereof.....A second book is
to be kept for recording cases of Unassessed Duty
reported to the Board with the amounts due for each year and dates of report.'
The
first of these two notebooks runs from 1908 to 1909, with 52 entries from all
parishes. Mr E. G. Edwards was the surveyor. Mr James Todd was the surveyor
whose name is given in the second, which runs from 1909 to 1911, with 58
entries. Some of the enquiries lead to an increased tax bill; some returns were
accepted; some assessments were reduced. They were routine enquiries of the
kind still made now. A number revealed more serious offences and where that
happens there is a cross reference to what was until recently known as the Back
Duty Notebook.
I did
not find a Back Duty Notebook but the third book which I recovered is the
'Surveyor's Record of Unassessed Duty', running from
1910 to 1928. This also has cross references to Back Duty Notebooks and its
entries are those where there was a tax recovery for past years as opposed to
the current year corrections which stayed in the Surveyors' Note Book.
There
seem to have been two levels of enquiry: routine current year enquiries whose
outcome was not reported to the Board and recoveries (Back Duty) where a formal
settlement was made with the Board, possibly with penalties.
I
have drawn an arbitrary line at the start of the First World War - more
precisely at the end of 1914. It is not clear what happened during the war. The
first two notebooks do not cover that period but the 'Record of Unassessed Duty' runs to 1928. The 10 folios up to the end
of 1914 contain 40 reported cases over a 51 month period; the next 2 show only
5 reported settlements, all of them completed by October 1915. Of those 5, one
was from Hale and the other from Timperley. The Book
does not then seem to have been used until a group of entries was made in 1919
at about the time I believe the District was divided.
The
complete stop to investigation is surprising for, at least according to Basil
Sabine, resources were still available despite the strains of war. He noted
that there was a
'massive increase in staff during the war period; even so,
the work burden was considerable.'2
It is
probable that there was some separate wartime record but if so, why return to
the old record after the war and carry on as if nothing had happened? After the
gap period the entries continued until successive Surveyors noted that
individual entries and eventually the complete book had been closed with dates
of May 1926 and finally probably February 1929. There is nothing to explain the
temporary closure or disuse in 1915. Furthermore, the 5 entries on f13 look as
if they had all been made at the same time, either copied from another ledger
or reflecting a sudden resurgence of activity. It may be that
So much for the books themselves. What do they reveal?
An
insider, whether looking at them as an Inspector or as a tax advisor might say
that very little has changed. The surveyors queried the returns of a wide range
of taxpayers and very often met the same mistakes and explanations as the
Inspector does today. The two Note Books reveal that the Surveyors made 55
investigations spread over 31 occupations, ranging from surgeons to plumbers,
from corn millers to land speculators, as well as interest received and income
from assets held overseas. Regrettably, even Church of England clergymen failed
their examination, though none of them were in Altrincham
or its surrounding parishes.
Of
the total 55 investigations, the surveyors were able to reject 34 returns
(61.8%) but accepted, or were obliged to accept 21 (48.2%). Of those they
rejected, 16 (29%) were sufficiently serious for the Surveyor to make a formal
report to the Board.
It is
worth noting that 35 of the 55 entries were for Altrincham
and that must indicate its economic size relative to the other three parishes.
The notebooks refer to enquiries about 31 occupations or activities but whilst
these give us a limited picture of how people earned their living in the area,
the sample is too small to replace the comprehensive view that can be gained
from contemporary trade directories. I will not therefore explore the variety
of occupations in its own right but turn instead to how the Surveyor set about
his task.
Irregularity
was spread fairly evenly over the occupations. Of 5 builders' returns, 3 were
accepted but 2 were found to be incorrect. All 3 plumbers failed the Surveyors'
scrutiny, 2 badly enough to be reported to the Board. The two innkeepers were
evenly split but the sole victualler let the side
down. The two surgeons were also evenly split, but both dentists' returns were
wrong. Perhaps the most surprising outcome, given common perception, was that
the returns of both land speculators turned out to be correct, although one
only after a formal appeal to the Special Commissioners.
It is
possible to detect some element of condescension in the Surveyors' decisions,
perhaps relecting a more charitable attitude towards
the book-keeping ability of the average tradesman. One firm of builders
returned a loss which the Surveyor did not accept and the Commissioners fixed
an assessment of œ1100 after an appeal hearing. That was the end of the matter
despite the large difference. Another grocer cum baker had to settle for œ400
instead of the œ150 he had returned but he escaped with paying the tax and a
warning of penalties in the future. By contrast, both the individuals who underdeclared bank interest were registered as formal Back
Duty cases, even though in the end one had to pay only £12-6-2, albeit over 12
back years. If we throw in a cotton agent, a man of standing, who was formally
registered although owing only £31-17-6, and one of the vicars from outside the
four parishes, who omitted an annual £100 stipend as well as substantial fees,
we can perhaps detect a feeling that the gentry and professionals should know
better and should therefore be punished more severely. Whilst this theory is
tempting, we must remember that the Surveyor did not formally report either
dentist or the surgeon; probably his reason was the same as for tradesmen, that
a current year accounting error was not seen as culpable. I return to this
aspect later. Perhaps also he had personal reasons for not wanting to upset
them too much!
This
attitude towards record keeping does point towards the difficulty in establishing
what in current jargon is called a 'penalty position'. Since there was no legal
obligation to keep books of record the Surveyor seems to have accepted that it
would be seen as unreasonable to punish a taxpayer for an understatement that
arose from a failure to keep them. Not only was there was no law requiring
taxpayers to keep books of record, but in fact the Surveyor had virtually no
powers. His strength was that he might persuade the Commissioners to increase
the assessment and they
had very wide discretionary powers in what they might accept as
evidence in support of an appeal. Basil Sabine states the system very neatly:
'In
many districts, very few accounts would be submitted except those of registered
companies, or figures, more or less accurate, furnished in support of appeals.
If a Surveyor was bold enough to ask for accounts in support of a Return and
the taxpayer complained, an Inspector might well be sent from Somerset House to
interview the complainant and effect a compromise
settlement.'3
The
Surveyors had to achieve their ends by persistent persuasion and using the
Commissioners' ability to raise a bigger assessment to bring the reluctant
taxpayer into line. One such occasion was in 1909. The Return had shown œ350,
and the assessment was originally on £450. The Surveyor enquired:
16.10.09 LB for A/cs No reply
24.3 1910 Asst
increased by addl to £700. Assessment paid.
8.9.1910 Submitted
to Addl Commissioners. Assessed £1000
..10.1910 Appealed.
A/cs shew that
£450 was enough.' [3/15 Alt]
The
record shows that the Surveyors used the threat of the Commissioners' powers
effectively, for they only had to refer 6 taxpayers to them because of a
refusal to produce accounts or returns. One refusal, from the Solicitors to a
firm of Corn Millers, was quite blunt:
18/9/08 Wrote for a/cs
21/10 Refr [Reminder]
19/11 Ditto
4/1/09 Ditto
20/1 Refr by registered letter
25/1 Letter
from Solr declining to produce a/cs
25/1 Wrote
to Clerk to Commissioners re Addl
3/4 Submitted
to Commrs to increase assessment by £200 - which they
did.' [2/3 Alt]
There
was then a cross-reference to the next Note Book when the review was re-opened
the following year and eventually £175 Back Duty was paid.
Given
that kind of support from the Commissioners, it is not surprising that most
taxpayers responded either by producing accounts or making their books
available for the Surveyor when he asked. In addition, since the Commissioners
were local men of influence, taxpayers might not wish to be brought to their
attention as inattentive or dishonest in their tax affairs. The successive
entries in which the Surveyors did ask for accounts, and obtained them without
complaint, suggests either that Basil Sabine exaggerated a little or that the Altrincham Surveyors were skilfull
operators who knew what the Commissioners felt to be fair, and kept their
support by taking care not to exceed it.
The
Commissioners did not always support the Surveyors. They were also involved 6
times in disputes where the Surveyor and the Taxpayer could not agree upon a
figure for assessment. In 3 cases there was no appeal against the additional
assessment which was raised at the Surveyor's request, in one the General
Commissioners reduced an assessment from £2000 to £1100; in another they
reduced an assessment of £700 to £450. We do not know the reason for their
decision but it probably left both parties dissatisfied for the accounts
produced in support of the appeal showed a profit of £153. In the last appeal
the Special Commissioners discharged altogether an assessment upon a Hale man
dealing in land.
The
individual Surveyor clearly made up his mind on subjective rather than
mechanistic factors and the notes reveal that they recognised and understood
the problems of the untutored shopkeeper. Side by side with strictures about
the lack of records, they also noted errors arising through sheer ignorance. It
is easy to see why they preferred to take a more formal line with matters like
the omission of interest where there was no real excuse for a failure by a
literate person to copy the correct figures from his bank book onto his income
tax return.
Some
of the comments show the failings that the Surveyor met when examining Returns.
As we shall see later, a builder's books were less than perfect with incorrect
work in progress and no record of payments on account.
One
other error is still with us:
'Called
- would look up to see whether [Personal] Drawings included in wages items and
will get out past years' a/cs.' [2.15 Hale]
Even
more familiar:
'Query? Record of takings and Bank Book etc?
Response: No record of takings - all payments by cash. Bills not kept.' [2.16
Hale]
And
another:
'24
Sept Asked for a/cs. 5 Oct - Reply; no material. 5 Oct - Wrote ? No record of takings, bills etc' [2.17 Hale]
Finally,
another technical error:
'Enquiries re deductions. Are repairs charged as well as
depreciation & loan interest? Acct called: Repairs & renewals charged
in addition to depreciation. Will look into question of
depreciation for past years.' [2.37 Alt]
This last query lead to an increase from the declared amount of £2185
to £2324, including past years.
The
Surveyors knew the sort of mistakes that were made, were prepared for them and
were content to treat them as innocent errors, at least the first time round.
Things
could be different the second time round. One chemist ignored the Surveyor in
1908. He declared £300 in his return and took no notice of three requests for
accounts, in September & October 1908 and January 1909. The assessment was
made on £450 and the chemist did not appeal, presumably because he knew it
wasn't big enough. That was unwise, for the Surveyor returned to the question
in 1909, secured a meeting and examined the ledgers and especially the bank
book. The result was an assessment of £600 with £15 Back Duty.
Peoples'
financial affairs never cease to reveal odd customs. One oil merchant returned
£285 and the Surveyor decided to investigate. His notes reveal that the
taxpayer called in to explain and the entry reads:
'Cannot furnish proper accounts. Profits very
small. Payment of accounts accepted in shares in cotton spinning
mills.'[3.17 Alt]
This
was plainly not good enough and one way or another the
assessment was fixed at £400 and could not be reduced.
There
is only one indication of what we would now call legal avoidance, though the
implication is that the intention was really evasion. It comes from Withington, but is worth mention. The Surveyor noted:
'23/1/11 Cutting from newspaper dated 21/1/11 shews that in public speech [Miss XXXX XXXX]
announced
her intention
of investing money abroad so that tax could not be deducted.
4/4/11 Submitted to addl
Commissioners. Nothing done for 1910/11.
7/9/11 Submitted again. Assd £250.
10/10/11 Called. No income as yet from
foreign investments. Filled up Form 11 - nil.
12/10/11 Wrote: ?
any expected before 5/4/12 ?/11/11 Yes
19/4/12 Reduced to £218 per return'
[3/37 With]
One
may wonder how the lady's investments fared when the War started three years
later.
Many
of us who have chuckled at the continued inclusion of the cost of keeping a
horse in the Schedule E expenses rule, but it was a reality in 1908. A grocer
in Bowdon included as expenses
'keep of horse etc & stable rent, œ1-5-0' [2/11 Bowd]
Chief
rents are common in the Altrincham area. In 1908 the
Surveyor had to consider their creation, for a builder in Hale had omitted them
from his records. On the 6th October the Surveyor asked for or obtained
accounts. On the 12th he established that chief rents had been created but not
included and on the same day (perhaps at a meeting) the builder accepted that
he would pay Back Duty on them for the past. On the 19th the Surveyor asked for
a meeting which was held on 11th November. There was then a rambling
explanation:
'Surveyor
asked as to accounts from commencement. [Builder] said he had a [...] in 1900
& ceased business till 1902. He was asked to get (1) particulars of chiefs
omitted from April 1902 to March 1908 & cost of land (2) Value of houses
built and unsold at April 1908 (3) ditto at April 1904.'
On
the 19th November the builder called again,
'with list of chiefs since 1902 - will send in full a/cs from April 1902 but will require some weeks to make
out.'[2/24 Hale].
The
assessment for the current year was eventually fixed at £716.
The
Surveyor can be seen as understanding, if not tolerant, in the following:
'Inadequate
returns due to ignorance - Bad Debts deducted not yet written off - Interest on
Capital also deducted. Agreed to pay what had been underassessed
1905/6 to 1908/9. Finally agreed to pay £175.' [3/11
Alt]
Sometimes
one might wonder how a business managed to survive. A jeweller explained that
he had:
'16.10.09
No proper system of books but undertakes to keep cash book & furnish a/cs in future. I agreed to postpone inquiry for further
evidence.
'8.9.10 No return. Addl Commissioners
assessed £400' [3/17 Alt]
compared with the £370 returned the year before.
It
may seem odd that a successful jeweller could manage his business without
keeping any worthwhile records, but to judge by a range of entries, even a
builder could do the same. Their accounts usually seem to have been prepared on
a cash basis, leaving the proprietor with no idea of his real worth, at least
on paper. One was mentioned above; he had provided some form of accounts, but
they were not good enough and at a meeting on 20 January 1909 he agreed to
provide more information. The Surveyor's notes read:
'Called. Will try to get value of contracts on hand in 1902, 3
& 4 & send a/c for period Jan 1905 to Ap 1905.'
The
details arrived on 3 February. The Surveyor noted:
' Wrong? work in progress at end of
year and whether payments on account of such had been included in a/cs. The response - cannot give better accounts. Says
receipts for next year will contain any sums on account of work in progress
& will equalise things.' [2.8 Alt]
When
those came, there was no resolution, for the Surveyor noted:
'Couldn't
give better a/cs - says receipts for next year will
contain any sums on a/c of work in progress & will equalise things'.
Judged
by the amount of pure accountancy error the following note on a confectioner is
perhaps the worst example:
'Acct
called. Never took stock. Practically constant - consists chiefly of perishable
goods. No drawings, Loan interest, Depreciation, Life Insurance & interest
on capital charged.'[2/7 Alt]
The
Surveyor did a quick calculation and decided that profits were about £428,
against a Return of £321 but an assessment of £450. That
being so, he decided to leave matters as they were.
The
entry for another casual taxpayer, a publican, from Ashton on
'Banks
weekly but may pay out in cash before banking - Bank book contains some
household expenses.'[2/10 Ashton]
There
was again a quick calculation:
'Saves
about p.a. out of business £200
Cost
of living about £208
Deemed
profit £408 (against an
assessment of £450)
and a final optimistic note 'Will keep records in future'.
There
are several striking feature about these entries. The first is that the
settlements are all very rough and ready, with no attempt at precision. Generally
the Surveyor tested the accuracy of the Returns by adding together annual
savings and personal expenses to arrive at an approximate profit. Everybody
seems to have been quite happy with that and there was a general willingness to
accept a broad brush solution. There was a certain amount of horse trading,
especially when there were no reliable figures to work on. One Cotton Agent
tried to wriggle:
9/11
Called. Showed him statement showing œ29 Back Duty -
will send offer in a day or two.
11/11 To Inspector [Somerset House], annexing offer of
£15.
17/11
To [Solicitor?] for further details
24/11
To Inspector. In business 20 years Return annexed
10/12
From Inspector. Party will send amended offer
15/12
To Inspector. Offer amended. [2/30 Alt]
Clearly
the Inspector, to whom the Surveyor reported, was not satisfied with the
original £15 offered and took a hand himself.
Another
feature, clearly related to the last, is the speed with which settlements were
reached. Straight-forward Revenue
investigations now take something over a year to settle, on average; complex
ones can take years. By contrast, in the period we are examining, more than one
third were settled in less than a month (19 out of 51 where the dates can be
established), and even more (26) in less than six. Only 5 took from six months
to a year and only one longer than that. There was a special reason on that
occasion, for settlement had to wait for a formal appeal hearing. A fair number
were settled on the day. The Surveyor would invite the taxpayer to produce
accounts or call. Frequently he did so and talked through a settlement there
and then. It was not only rough justice, but quick for the Surveyors' replies
to letters were usually sent by return. There was a refreshing lack of
bureaucracy in another way. The only record that the Surveyor
seems to have kept, other than his reports to the Inspector, were his
notebook entries. These never occupied more than one
page and sometimes less than that, with two individuals to a page. Perhaps in
those easy days when the omitted profits were recovered at a shilling in the
pound, or less, there was less point in fighting over every detail.
Tax
rates were low,4 and by our standards the profits were
minute. Only a few incomes reached four figures and most were in the lower
hundreds. What was the effect of the Surveyors' activities? It can be measured
in two ways. The first is the increase in assessment over the amount returned
and the second is recovery for past years, Back Duty. The first can be calculated
by measuring the difference between the final assessment and the figure
returned. With a little uncertainty due to the way the figures were set out,
that amounted to increased profits of £6873 for the current year examined.
Where there was Back Duty the Surveyors noted the fact but not always the
amount. Their entries amount to a minimum of tax of £693 for past years. The
total is comparatively much lower because tax rates were so low but it is clear
that some of the profit discrepancies were substantial.
The
'Record of Unassessed Duty' records Back Duty
settlements achieved between September 1910 and June 1928. There is a cross
reference between three individuals' entries in the 'Surveyors' Note Books' and
the 'Unassessed Duty' book, but other cross references
must be to books now lost. The series of 'Unassessed
Duty' books therefore served as a central point for a variety of individual
Surveyors' 'Notebooks'. The settlements achieved before the end of 1914 and
relating to recoveries from the four parishes total £1382 tax. If the three
where there is a cross reference are deducted, the remainder total £1136.50 and
that net figure can be added to the previous sum of the Surveyors' activities
to arrive at the best value we can of their efforts. It is necessarily an
under-statement for it omits adjustments from 1911 to 1914 which were not
passed to the record of 'Unassessed Duty' as well as
Back Duty Settlements from 1908 to the end of 1910. It is, however, the best we
can do. The enquiries relating to the remaining two entries that occur in both
books were later investigations which in one case followed on from the first
review, and in the other, reviewed a lengthy period covering and including the
earlier year.
Finally,
what of the men themselves? Sadly, the records tell us nothing about the
Surveyors as individuals other than the two names already cited and some of
their successors who inherited and finally closed the notebooks. One signature
is clear, J. A. Hill, from 1920 but the others cannot be read with certainty.
They were accountable for their results, for in the 'Record of Unassessed Duty' there is a running total of their
recoveries, though the reporting period is not clear. We can guess a little
about their working pattern, for they seem to have turned their attention to
particular areas in rotation, starting a number of enquiries on the same day.
They left their offices and called upon taxpayers - such as the lady investing
abroad - and also received visits in their office from accountants, solicitors
and taxpayers. Apart from that, they remain archetypically featureless.
This
paper has been written under the constraints of Revenue confidentiality.
Personal tax records do not enter the public domain even after nearly 100 years
and one result has to be a frustrating anonymity. Descendents of some of the
people named still live in the area; some of the businesses still flourish. One
senior holder of public office who forgot to declare the fees paid to him for
that office could easily be identified and so cannot be named. That limits the
interest but even without that detail the story is still fresh. Fiscal life was
less formal than now as records were few and far between and computer printouts
had not replaced the quick calculation on half a sheet of paper that everyone
seemed to accept as fair. 'They tried to be fair' is perhaps the most fitting
judgement on the Surveyors and Commissioners of the time.
APPENDIX
1
THE
OCCUPATIONS EXAMINED IN THE SURVEYORS' NOTEBOOKS
(Excluding
entries in the Record of Unassessed Duty which by
definition arose from incorrect Returns)
Occupation
Total
Correct
Bakers
1
0
Bank
Interest
4
2
Builders
5
3
Builders'
Merchant
1
0
Butcher
1
1
Chemist
3
2
Coach
Proprietor
1
0
Confectioner
2
0
Corndealer
1
0
Corn
Miller
1
0
Cotton
Agent
1
0
Cycle/Motor
Dealer
1
1
Dentist
2
0
Draper
4
0
Foreign
Possessions
1
0
Fruiterer
1
1
Grocer
4
0
Hosiers
1
1
House Furnisher?
1
0
Innkeeper
1
1
Jeweller
1
*
Journalist
1
1
Land
Dealers
2
2
Newspaper
Representative
1
0
Oil
Merchant
1
0
Plumbers
3
0
Schools
2
2
Surgeons
2
1
Traveller
1
1
Vetinerary Surgeon
1
1
Victualler
1
0
*The
figures were accepted the first year, shown to be incorrect the next.
APPENDIX
2
CASES
REFERRED TO COMMISSIONERS
Ref
Assessment
Result
2/1
2000
Reduced
to 1100 by Commissioners
2/3
Addl £200
No
Accounts - NO APPEAL???
3/3
Addl £1000
Determined ????
3/12
Addl £400
No
Accounts - No appeal
3/15
No
Accounts - Asst increased. Tax paid.
2nd addl - reduced on appeal
3/15
Ditto
3/16
Addl
Tax
paid
3/17
Addl £400
No
Return made.
3/33
Addl
No
Appeal
3/38
Formal
Appeal to Special Commissioners;
addl assessment discharged
3/39
No
reply to Surveyor's questions.
Appeal - RESULT??
3/42
Addl £250???
No
reply to Surveyor's questions.
2/5
Disputed
APPENDIX
3
THE
DURATION OF ENQUIRIES
REF STARTED FINISHED MONTHS OUTCOME REASON FOR LENGTH
1908
2/1 24/4 26/5/09 13 Reduced Formal
appeal hearing
2/2 18/9 6/10 3weeks Accepted
2/3 28/9 3/4 6 Addl 200 Commrs
assessed
2/4 21/9 25/3 6 Asst upheld A/cs Prepared
2/5 14/9 9/3 6 Asst reduced Appeal hearing
2/6 21/9 26/10 1 Asst
sufficient
2/7 21/9 2/11 6weeks Asst sufficient
2/8 21/9 5/2 4 1/2 Asst
reduced
2/9 21/9 20/1 4 No appeal against addl
asst
2/9 21/9 ?
2/11 24/9 30/9 1week Asst
above Return
2/12 24/9 8/1 3 1/4 Asst
sufficient
2/13 24/9 6/10 2weeks Return accepted
2/14 24/9 15/2 5 Asst upheld ?Prevarication
2/15 24/9 12/11 1 1/2 Asst
upheld
2/16 24/9 15/10 3weeks Return correct
2/17 24/9 9/10 2weeks Asst enough
2/24 6/10 19/11 1 1/2 Carried
forward for future
2/25 6/10 19/11 1 1/3 Asst
above Return
2/27 24/9 29/9 1week Return
accepted
2/30
29/9 15/12 2 1/2 Back
Duty Settlement
2/32 6/11 6/1 2 Arrears assessed
2/34 9/2 26/2 2weeks £20 back duty + increase
2/35 7/12 30/3 3 3/4 Asst
increased
2/36 29/1 30/3 2 Back Duty on Bank Interest
2/37 2/3 30/3 1 Addl asst on
tech errors
2/38 25/3 27/4 1 Back Duty on Dec'd
estate
2/39 29/4 ?29/4 0 Back
Duty on Bank Int
3/7 /4 ? £350
back duty tax paid
3/8 30/6/09 2/10 3 Back Duty from 1897; assessed at £695
+ £127 Back
Duty
3/9 2/6 28/6 3weeks Back Duty on Bank Interest.
3/11 30/6 23/9 3 Back Duty £175
3/12 30/6 8/10 3 1/4 £400
assd against £300 returned
3/12 30/6 20/9 2 3/4 £500
assd against £400 returned
3/13 16/10 15/11 1 Asst
sufficient
3/14 3/7/09 6/7/10 12 Asst discharged Delay
in producing accs
3/15 16/10/09
-/10/10 12 Addl asst
reduced on appeal
3/15 16/10/09
-/10/10 12 Addl asst
reduced on appeal
3/16 16/10 19/10 1week Addl asst; Back Duty 4 yrs
3/16 16/10 8/9 11 T/p
refused to call; two addls
3/17 16/10 16/10 0 Increase
to £400, against £285 returned
3/17 16/10/09 8/9/10 11 Enquiry
postponed - COVERED TWO YEARS
3/18 16/10 16/10 0 Asst
£600 against £300 returned
3/19 27/10 27/10 0 Returns
accepted
3/19 19/10 21/1 3 £150 Back Duty
3/25 23/5 23/5? 0
Back Duty £84
3/27 26/5 30/5 1week Back
Duty £55
3/28 16/6/11 26/6/11 2weeks Back Duty £50
3/30 26/7 27/7 0 £345 asst against £138 returned
3/33 3/8 30/8 3weeks Back Duty included in £318 asst
3/38 29/10 2/2 3 Asst discharged
by Spec Commiss
3/39 11/9 10/1 4 Asst £350 against œ145 returned; no BD
3/42 23/7 13/9 1 3/4 No reply; £250 asst; no appeal
APPENDIX
4
STATISTICAL
SUMMARY OF THE ENTRIES
Book
2
Ref Returned Final Increase Back Duty
1 Loss 1100 1100
2 240 240 0
3 677 877 200
4 204 300 96
5 534 450 -84
6 200 200 0
7 321 450 129
8 400 245 -155
9 300 450 150
9 170 170 0
11 300 460 160
12 200 200 0
13 520 520 0
14 204 500 296
15 225 290 65
16 250 250 0
17 170 400 230
24 See 34
25 200 250 50
27 834 834 0
30 200 31.80
31 18 18 0
32 260 260 0
33
0 253 253
34 0? 716 716 20.00
35 392 676 284
36 12.00
37 2185 2324 139
38 336 unknown
39 nil? 12.60
Book
3
7 nil? 35.00
8 440 695 255
9 138 138 0 33.00
11 1126 1173 47 175.00
12 300 400 100
12 400 500 100
13 360 360 0
14 300 0 -300
15 350 450 100
15 160 250 90
16 120 250 130 8.75
16 150 1000 850
17 285 400 115
17 321 321 0
18 575 575 0
18 300 600 300 15.00
19 378 378 0
19 800 715 -85 150.00
25 nil? 84.00
27 175 350 175 55.00
28 150 262 112 50.00
29 686 686 0
30 loss 345 345
33 nil? 318 11.60
38 nil nil nil
39 145 350 205
42 169 250 81
42 217 185 -32
Profit
Increase £6873
(gross)
Back
Duty Yield £693.75
The
opinions expressed in this article are personal to the author and are not those
of the Inland Revenue.
REFERENCES
1
Since this article was written the notebooks have been deposited with the
Greater Manchester County Record Office.
2 . B E V Sabine; A History of
Taxation p. 155.
3 ibid, p138.
4 In
1913: Up to £1000 @ 9d, the next £500 @ 10.1/2d, the next £500 @ 1 shilling,
the next £500 @ 1s 2d, and above £2500 @ 1s 4d.