Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1867-06-20
Correspondence of the Herald
The Income Tax,

Under the law requiring Income
Tax" is man to be taxed for the actual
amount OF his incOms or his expenses, in
carrying on his business This is the
question. have case in point.
One OF the proprietors Of New Eng
land Seminary made returns, under oath,
to the assistant assessor of his district
for the year 1866. In these returns he
gave his full income for all money re-
ceived for board and tuition 10 the insti-
tuition. From this income he deducted.
among other items $500 for repairs on
the buildings (three in number, used for
school purposes). OF this expense for
repairs the assessor would allow only
800, and that for repairs on one build
ing, refusing to allow anything on the
other two, although more than two
thirds OF all the income was received in
consequence OF occupying these rejected
buildings. Now what says the law on
this point &?
Under the head OF deductions a.
lowed" Sec. 4, we read necessary repairs
to property yielding the nicoms." But in the
case before Us, taxes were levied on
$500 actually spent in necessary re-
pairs" on the two buildings from which
more than two.thirds Of this income
was received. BY what law, or right,
or with what justice, l should be glad
to know. Again, the assessor deducted
from the 5000 spent for provisions,
wood, lights and other necessary ex-
penses, in providing for the family and
carrying on the school, $1,000 more,
and reported IS subject to tax OF i've
per cent. 1885. Every dollar Of this
money ,oaS spent as ADORE stated, and the
S60.75 the tar demanded has been paid Oh, ca
pe,,sss and not on income. These are the
facts in the case before US, and the party
interested claims that he has been
wronged, and claims the right to appeal,
first, to the public, and afterwards to
higher tribunal of justice. There is
principle involved in this transaction in
which every business man in the COM
munity Is interested, and which should,
in some way, be settled. At the Begin
ing of the year the furnished buildings
were all opened for the reception of
pupils. From the board and tuition of
these pupils an income was received
which was rendered to the assessor in
good faith. Now, if two of these build
ings had been closed, less than one-third
of the number of pupils could have been
received, and, Of course, less than one
third of the income.
| would ask ia the name of outraged
law and common justice, how the in
come could be retained and the expenses,
or what yielded that income, rejected
And have the proprietors no right to de-
duct what they actually expended in
feeding, warming and providing lights
for the family, and in sustaining the
school? And may they not keep this
school property in as good repair as
when the year commenced? Is it not
the design OF the law that all necessary
expenses in carrying on the business
should be deducted before taxable in
come is claimed? The law enumerates
In the same section quoted above 'In-
surance on property yielding income
or pay and subsistence for hired laborers,
or clerks and their subsistence, employed
in conducting the business; or fuel,
freight, ETC., for store, shop, etc. or all,
as the case may be-" And again, Sec. s:
"The income tax is assessed upon the
actual income o. individuals" Yet 81 900
Of these very expenses is taxed in the
case under review; and I know of no
other name by which to call the wrong
the party has suffered but ertortion.
HIRAM ORCUTT