14
in Nu C.D.MW.
Schune
X
contributions to the first batch similarly to take account of any U.K. Income Tax that the first batch may have been called upon to pay. I must say,
ith all respect, that I think it highly unsatisfactory that Hong Kong should be called upon to pay higher allowances either from its revenue or from its C.D. & W. allocation, to take account of U.K. Income Tax: the effect of this would surely be nothing more than a contribution from Hong Kong to U.K. income tax?
6. Finally, I draw attention to
Mr. Titchener's minute of 2nd May on 11007/ 8403 attached, and to the three questions at (a) (b) and (c) in the final paragraph of that minute. I do not think we can decide any of these questions without reference to Hong Kong. With regard to the point at (b) of that minute, if this same question is likely to arise in the case of the second batch, I think we ought to allow for this by making separate financial provision under the heading "Contingencies".
7. I therefore suggest we should attempt to clarify the position with Hong Kong as in the draft telegram opposite. Perhaps Mr. Titchener could insert the figure in para. 5 of the draft telegram, which I have at present left blank, in view of the wide discrepancy between the figures given in Mr. Hama's minute of the 10th of March and those in the financial sumary attached to No. 12. This procedure will involve still further
delay
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.