View report page

41
the ground floor or basement. Under these conditions, it is
possible for two shops with residential rooms over, occupied
in a similar way and in every respect of the same value, to be
assessed at a different rate. For instance, a retail tradesman
takes the lease of a house and shop, and having more accommodation
than he requires, lets the first floor to a professional
man, and resides in the upper floors himself. He is assessed
at 6d. in the pound. Supposing, however, that the professional
man realizes the necessity of a permanent address for
his atelier or consulting room, as the case may be, and therefore
himself holds the lease, but still only occupies the first
floor, the tradesman occupying the shop and upper floors as
before, he is assessed at 9d. in the pound. Now in such a
case injustice is done either to the tradesman—who pays the
professional man a higher rent to cover the increased taxes—
or to the professional man, who, although he uses his portion
of the premises solely for the purpose of carrying on business,
is mulct in a higher rate of duty. It may be said that the
difference between a rate of 6d. and 9d. is small. That may
be so in premises assessed at ,£50 or £60, but where the
building is assessed at £500 or £600, as is frequently the
case in Regent Street, the grievance is substantial. There is
moreover, another objection to the differential rate as at
present imposed. It would be quite possible for the professional
man to privately agree with the tradesman for the
latter to be assessed, in which case the lower scale would
apply, and the revenue be defrauded. Now a tax that invites
evasion is not satisfactory, and should be placed on a sounder
footing.
There are several other anomalies affecting among others industrial
dwellings and private hotel-keepers, but perhaps the
two above-mentioned are the most glaring. It has been alleged