THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL'S GUIDE TO THE INCOME - TAX.

Tan interest which the Income-tax is exciting, not merely among those who will have to pay it, but in every one at whose domicile a return may be left, is shown by the number of publications respect- ing it, from the penny "copy" of the Act to the elaborate volume. Among the last class must be ranked the publication before us ; which was prepared by the Inspector-General of Stamps and Taxes, for official use by the persons engaged in assessing, collect- ing, or adjudicating upon the tax. The interest felt about it, and the demand for copies among individuals to whom it could not be officially distributed, induced the author to extend and revise it for general publication. Whether this or any other attempt at "the Income-tax made Easy" will be of use to many of those who are puzzled by it, may be questioned ; since, if they cannot understand the returns, they can- not the Act. Any difficulty in applying a general rule, is an indi- vidual difficulty, which the Act or explanations of the Act will not readily meet. The proper person to advise with ought to be the Assessor; but these functionaries are mostly incapable, and always unwilling, because it imposes upon them a trouble which is not "considered in their wages."

The utility of the published Act is for close perusal, so that by thoroughly understanding it the mind is prepared and sharpened to comprehend any particular case that comes before it. And the use of a commentary is to explain, as far as is practicable, the obscure verboseness and apparent contradiction between the words and meanings of the Act. Of the editions with a com- mentary, the one before us is about the best. The author not only brings to the composition of his notes all his official ex- perience, but he has introduced into his text or his appendixes a great number of cases from the practice and the decisions under the old Income-tax. And we make no scruple in say- ing, that unless the Autocrat Minister keep a watchful eye over his myrmidons—whether the solicitor with his farfetched refine- ments, or the busy, prying, surcharging surveyor, or the parish- minded Commissioners with their political prejudices and possibly their personal feelings — he will raise against himself a host of enemies, more formidable than the Anti-Corn-law League, or the Conference of reverend Assassination-suggesters, or the ready- witted and unscrupulous personages on the Opposition benches, or even than the insurrectionary Turn-outs and Chartists. He will have the monied and middle classes excited against him, and a " Pressure from without" which no Members can withstand. From Place, indeed, he may not be driven—there is nobody to take it ; but power will depart from him ; and it behoves him to remember, that among political parties he has not a political friend. Parlia- mentary parties submit because they cannot help themselves ; but as soon as the monied and middle class confidence, on which he now rests, is shaken, he will become the football of factions. Amid the " precedents" of this volume, here is a precious case- " A rents a house and offices, with gardens, spacious court-yard, &c., at 300/. per annum. The surveyor values the garden and court-yard at 30/., and sur- charges it to Schedule B. The Commissioners determine, that although the whole is let by one lease, and although the court-yard and garden produce no profit, that it is assessable.

A. Value. B.

Value. Duty. Duty. Total. Assessment 300 8 15 0 30 0 8 9 9 r, 9

" However small the land may be that is occupied with a house, it is charge- able under Schedule B, on a distinct valuation."

The meaning of this is, that a gentleman rented a villa with gar- den and court-yard, for the whale of which he paid 3001. a year : but because a part of that whole was a garden, the surcharging sur- veyor chose to class him as a farmer, and, rating the value of the court-yard and grounds at 30/., assessed him additionally to that amount in Schedule B: this assessment was maintained, and the gentleman obliged to pay it. Now we think our readers will agree that this was an imposition without a shadow of support from the nicest refinement of law or metaphysics. It was not pretended that the property was underlet-300/. was its extreme value : it was admitted that the gentleman derived no profit from his garden ; in point of fact, his fruit and vegetables cost him treble or quad- ruple what he could have bought them for : whilst, to cap the whole, his gardeners, no doubt, were taxed as such—from which tax, as an agriculturist, he would have been exempt. If the imposition in this class of cases only was generally acted upon, who can wonder that the country rose against the tax, notwith- standing the "glorious termination" of the war, the virtual anni- hilation of the Opposition, and the greater submission to authority in the public mind prevalent a quarter of a century ago ? It may be true that the amount of the tax was nothing to a man who could pay a rent of 300/. a year : but it is the sense of injustice which operates upon people, not mere amounts. It is not for six- pence that people go to the trouble of punishing a cabman who overcharges ; it is not the half-dozen francs, of which he fancies he has been cheated, that neutralizes the effects of change and foreign travel and prevents the fuming John Bull from enjoying the charms of nature or the wonders of art which it has cost him hundreds to get to; it is not the physical injury of the blow that stimulates a gentleman to risk his own life and take that of his adversary in a duel. A man who cannot allow for the feelings o. human nature, and the influences of national character, is not fit to be intrusted with the management of taxation, especially of a tax essentially distasteful. If the pedantry of the Poor-law Com- missioners be introduced into the collection of the Income-tax, Sir ROBERT PEEL will have a very different kind of opposition to en- counter to that upon the Poor-laws, and an opposition too earned and too powerful to permit even his Tory Members to trifle or submit to him, as they may have done upon other matters.

It is unnecessary to quote every case which strikes us as unjust or revolting to common sense, though capable of being supported on a metaphysical view ; and to enter at length into those we quote, would extend this article to a great length. Here are a few, that pretty well explain themselves.

HINTS TO KEEPERS OF HORSES, ERRAND-BOYS, &C.

The wages of servants, or clerks in trade, is a deduction from the profits ha making up the account, as a current expense of trade. It becomes the profit of the servant or clerk, who is chargeable for it under Schedule D.

A persou is kept in the double capacity of a menial servant and a clerk or shopman : no deduction can be made for these expenses. (If you let your porter wait at table, invite neither blab nor person connected with the Income- tax.]

An apothecary keeps a horse, which he uses to visit his patients, and also on other occasions not connected with his business: no deduction can be made for the expense of his keep, although he alleges he should not keep a horse if it was not for his business. If it were not for his business, he might not be enabled to maintain himself; but if his business enables him to keep a private establish- ment, he ought not to be allowed that argument. [The reason had better not have been given.]

MORE ACCEPTABLE TO CASUISTS THAN LANDLORDS.

The salaries paid to stewards or agents of lands must be accounted for by them, although no deduction is allowed to their employer; such deductions being confined to trades and professions. The salary is a profit acquired by labour and diligence, and is a different profit than when in the hands of the employer, which obviates any objection to a double charge.

FURTHER NICETIES.

The receiver appointed by the Court of Chancery to manage the estate of a ward of that court, who is paid a salary out of the rents, is chargeable for that salary, and cannot contribute by way of deduction to the tax-charge on the property in respect of his salary.

SCREWING UP METAPHYSICAL RIGHT INTO PRACTICAL ROBBERY.

From an income of 2001. the proprietor has set apart 80/. per annum for the payment of his debts, and claims a deduction to that amount : but the Com- missioners reject the claim, and charge him on 200/. This is an expenditure of his income, but not a diminution.

A and B are partners as attornies ; B by speculations in land becomes bank- rupt, and A, being his security, is compelled to pay 1,500L ; which sum he claims to deduct from his profits. The Commissioners reject the claim : they consider the loss as one not incurred in the course of his profession, but arises from an improvident trust and confidence in his partner, nowise connected with it.

In the same light a banker's loss was considered, who had confided a sum to his clerk, not in the course of business, which he embezzled.

An officer in a public office deposits his salary with a banker, who Ma : he is not entitled to a deduction on that account A holder of annuities in the Funds employs a banker in London to receive the dividends ; who, having received them, becomes bankrupt. The party con- siders this as a diminution of income, and claims to be exempted, on the ground of his income being thus reduced below the amount chargeable by the act. The Commissioners consider the receipt by his agent as his receipt, and refuse to grant the exemption.

Certain oil-mills are burnt down, and the owner claims a deduction from the profits of his trade for the loss thereby sustained. The Commissioners reject the claim: it is a loss of capital.