I move:—
That the extent and incidence of income tax (including sur-tax) shall be varied so as to give effect to provisions—
(a) defining the cases in which, the purposes for which and the extent to which, sums which would otherwise be treated as income of a woman are to be treated as her husband's income, and
(b) rendering a woman, her trustee, guardian, curator or committee, or her executors or administrators, liable in certain cases for amounts of unpaid income tax or sur-tax assessed on her husband, his trustee, guardian, curator or committee, or his executors or administrators.
As the law stands, if a husband and wife make an application, they may get separate assessment, but if they make no application, the husband is assessed and must pay. I think he would be assessed in any case, but he must pay. There are difficulties in that, because sometimes the husband may have very little, and if the husband says: "I have no money; I cannot pay," we are out. Also, if the wife dies leaving a fairly substantial estate and there is an amount owing by the husband, at the moment, he must pay, even though her estate goes to somebody else. These two matters are being made right in the Finance Bill. That means the Revenue Commissioners will assess the husband as they have been doing, but they may proceed against the wife, if they find out the husband has no goods and that the wife has. Secondly, it will enable the husband, if his wife is dead, to direct that the bill be sent on to the wife's estate and then he will have no more to do with it.
