CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE September 1

required by present law to be marked

with the name of the country of origin

must be similarly marked by the repackager, whether the importer, distributor,

retailer, or other handler of the merchandise. Goods in packages not so

marked would be subject to seizure and

forfeiture. The requirement could be

waived only where found to necessitate

such substantial changes in customary

trade practices as to cause undue hardship.

H.R. 5054 runs counter to one of our

major foreign policy objectives-the reduction of unnecessary barriers and

hindrances to trade. The burdens the

bill would impose are unnecessary because the Federal Trade Commission requires the disclosure of the foreign origin

of repackaged imported articles when it

is in the public interest to do so.

The United States and other principal

trading nations of the world have recognized that burdensome marking requirements can be a hindrance to trade and

have agreed to the principle that such

hindrances should be reduced to a minimum. H.R. 5054 might well result in

successive domestic handlers requiring

written assurances of proper marking in

order to avoid the severe penalty of

seizure and forfeiture. The cost and the

complications involved in such cumbersome paperwork would tend to discourage such imports. Moreover, this measure could prove ultimately damaging to

our export-expansion efforts, for needlessly restrictive action on our part

could readily lead to similarly restrictive

action by other countries against American goods.

In addition, the bill would unnecessarily extend the Bureau of Customs into

new areas by requiring the Bureau to follow goods after they have entered the

stream of domestic commerce and to act

against handlers of merchandise who are

not importers. The Bureau would be required to determine the nature of customary trade practices and the possibility of undue hardship in a field outside its normal competence. Aside from

the unnecessary additional expense,

these new responsibilities would be most

awkward for the Bureau to administer.

For these reasons I am withholding

my approval of H.R. 5054.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 5, 1960.

H.R. 6767, RAYMOND BAURKOT

I have withheld my approval from

H.R. 6767, for the relief of Raymond

Baurkot.

This bill would permit the filing of a

tax refund claim that was in fact filed

after the deadline date set by law.

Public Law 85-859 provided for the

refund of internal revenue taxes paid on

certain liquors lost as the result of a

major disaster occurring prior to the

date of enactment, September 2, 1958.

It required that claims be filed on or

before March 2, 1959. The claimant

filed on March 16, 1959, for a refund

of $382.10 paid in taxes on beer destroyed in a 1955 flood. He asserted

that he had telephoned the branch office

of the district director's office in Easton,

Pa., on February 26, 1959, and was informed by an unidentified person that

he had a "couple of months" in which

to file.

The Easton branch office has no record of any such request for information

from Mr. Baurkot. That office, moreover, does not itself handle alcohol-tax

problems. Its standard procedure is to

refer such inquiries to the assistant regional commissioner's office in Philadelphia which has general supervision

over such matters.

Information concerning Public Law

85-859 and its filing requirements were

widely disseminated to the liquor industry by the Internal Revenue Service.

It appears that the claimant received

the industry circular published by the

Service but thereafter misplaced it.

This circular set forth the March 2

deadline and specifically provided that

inquiries regarding claims should be addressed to the assistant regional commissioner's office.

Under these circumstances I am unable to approve this bill. The statutory

period of limitations, which the Congress has included in the revenue system as a matter of sound policy, is essential to the achievement of finality in tax

administration. Efficient administration of the tax laws is dependent upon

taxpayers meeting statutory deadlines.

To grant special relief in this case would

be to discriminate against other similarly situated taxpayers and to create an

undesirable precedent.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 8, 1960.

H.R. 7242, BANKRUPTCY ACT-STATUTORY LIENS

I have withheld my approval of H.R.

7242, to amend sections 1, 57j, 64a(5),

67b, 67c, and 70c of the Bankruptcy Act,

and for other further purposes.

I recognize the need for legislation to

solve certain problems regarding the priority of liens in bankruptcy, but this bill

is not a satisfactory solution. It would

unduly and unnecessarily prejudice the

sound administration of Federal tax

laws. In some cases, for example, mortgages would be given an unwarranted

priority over Federal tax liens even

though the mortgage is recorded after

the filing of the tax lien.

This and other defects of the bill can,

I believe, be corrected without compromising its primary and commendable

purpose. The Treasury Department and

the proponents of H.R. 7242 have been

working toward solution of recognized

problems in present law. Further cooperative efforts should produce satisfactory legislation that would avoid the

undesirable effects of this bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 8, 1960.

H.R. 1074, ERIC AND IDA MAE HJERPE

I am withholding my approval from

H.R. 2074, for the relief of Eric and Ida

Mae Hjerpe.

In their income tax return for 1952

these taxpayers reported as income certain disability payments received by Mr.

Hjerpe from his employer. During 1952,

however, the Court of Appeals for the

Seventh Circuit had held such disability

payments excludable from gross income,

even though the Internal Revenue Service had ruled to the contrary, and in

1957 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed.

The taxpayers' claim for refund, based

upon the excludability of the disability

pay received by Mr. Hjerpe, was filed almost 4 years after the 1952 return had

been filed and approximately 101/2

months after the expiration of the applicable 3-year statutory period of limitations. The claim was accordingly disallowed.

The last Congress enacted legislation

to grant general relief, on a nondiscriminatory basis, to taxpayers who had paid

income tax on disability pay excludable

from gross income under the Supreme

Court decision. Relief was not provided,

however, for taxpayers who, as in the

case at hand, had not attempted to protect their rights by filing timely claims

for refund.

H.R. 2074 would direct the payment to

Mr. and Mrs. Hjerpe of $1,096.48 as a

refund notwithstanding their late filing

and failure to qualify under the general relief legislation. The bill is similar

to several others from which I have withheld my approval in the past.

The statutory period of limitations,

which the Congress has included in the

revenue system as a matter of sound

policy, is essential in order to achieve

finality in tax administration. A substantial number of taxpayers paid income tax on disability payments received by them and failed to file timely

claims for refund. To grant special relief in this case, where a refund was not

claimed within the time prescribed by

law, would constitute a discrimination

against other similarly situated taxpayers and would create an undesirable

precedent.

Under the circumstances, therefore, I

am compelled to withhold my approval

of the bill.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, September 14, 1960.

H.R. 7618, H. P. LAMBERT CO., INC., AND

SOUTHEASTERN DRILLING CORP.

I am withholding my approval from

H.R. 7618, a bill for the relief of H. P.

Lambert Co., Inc., and Southeastern

Drilling Corp.

The bill would waive the applicable

statute of limitations and permit a

claim for refund of duty paid on certain

nondutiable equipment imported into

the United States.

The claimants requested that certain

oilfield equipment be entered under provisions of the tariff act affording dutyfree status to property originally manufactured in the United States. The

equipment was admitted duty-free after

the Lambert Co., the brokerage firm in

the case, had posted a bond to assure

production of the documentation required to establish U.S. origin. At the

request of the brokerage firm, the time

covered by the bond was extended on

several occasions. At the end of 2 years,

19168