New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-03-27
SAMUEL J. TILDEN'S INCOME TAX.
A DECISION FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

DECISION FOR THE GOVERNMENT.
JUDGE BIATCHFoRD's OpINIoN-MR. TILDENs DE-
MURRER on THE FIRST COUNT SUSTAINED
HE Is DEFEATED on THE OTHER COUNTS
Judge Blatchford yesterday handed down
his decision In the income suit Of the United states
against Samuel j. Tilden. The demurrer OF inc
defendant TO the first count OF the compiaih''
which covers the tax Of 1861, was sustaineu
TO the remaining eleven counts, covering inc
tax from 1862 to 1872, the defendant in'efposea
special offences The decision susaiDs the demurrer
the United States to these defences IL now remains %
a jury TO determine the amount OF tho hcomo " ''o
defendant between 1862 and 1872 inc opi"ion =.
very long, covering fortylve closely written pages
legal cap Following is q summary OF the impor'an'
points, M
The first count aims to recover as due on June 80.
1862 the sum OF So 900 OF per cent on an IN,
"a nased On the Act Of August s. 1861 demurred TO by
the defendant, aud the demurrer rs sus, r In,v /
f Sss un TG '4 Act DrS OF o. the opinion
contains clause preserving i fne TiaI1 1862,
or ans right Of action for that PURPOSE nor does ~ aG
enact any part Of the Act OF lsoi' wmcn r $50 on
Income tax for any time prior to January L. iooL Oh
The contrary the collection OF such tax plainly sN
cuded from the operation OF te AS1 BY the Act Of
1861 iell altogether except so lar Us Hi" '''" 'o'
lected. ..
and the defencos 10 them made by tho dciehdah' anu
continues: ....
MS commended for the defendant. that the statute
contains no provision either In the Act oi lso- vi III
n 81 ay Which bas not been assessed in special man
ner prescribed by the statute thar the United o'a,es
C on the annual income OF individual Or at ally until
after the of such annual income sn h mt , law
creating the tnX aud the amount OF the tax shal nave
% , p me sum of the income and that then action
must be the amount OF the tax SO computed anu ~
seed regard the positions 'hs tahcn as sns
t.fI IN. ttufa
Court of the United states in Dollar Savings Bank against
United states 40 Wallace, I'D.
After reviewing this case in detail, the opinion con-
TIMES:
The statute In imposing the per cent OF tax on the
income OF an individual makes charge on hun of sum-
WHICH Il certain for the purposes of action or DEBT;
because il can be certain through the action Of
judicial tribunal. by following the rales LAID down III thc
s cas the bank and It coptros the present
gard the savings bank deciding every one of the
questions raised on these points by the defendant, and
rs deciding all Of them adversely to the positions relied
by the defence In TINS case Inc Iorego,
that the sued for In This cannot be recovered
because they have never been entered on any as.ess
ment list. There remains the further que Wns.ne
the fact that less amount OF tax than that claimed was
entered list by the assessof-whether after re-
turn by the defendant in default OF Ietufn-.inu
that such less amount Of tax paid whether with or
without added penalty Is bar to the recovery by
the United States OF the difference between ihe s' TAX
and the true tax. . 49,,
is contended for the defendant that the making OF
the list this aud the collection of the TAX thereon
opcratcd ~, an election by the United states between
II
TO debar The United States from now prosecuting the
remedy Nv action the deficiency OF true tax, ana that
the action OF under the authority gwen him
by the statute To Naiuc the SUBJECT % 'dAaioh anu
apply to II the rate oil taAdtloh an. ue'.I-
mine the amount Of the tax, amounted To IN
adjudication OF the whole question: ana - nor
subject review in tins action The case oil IN, 6hi,d
cided hv Mr. Justice Clifford and Judge Ksowlcs IN the
Circuit Court the District Of Rhode Island Is IN az
The case of Dollar savings Bank aet United states
was directly in point aud respected a. precedent
decisive the point pre- eued TINS opinion Is entitled
% nr"position tba, the United states elected between
the statutory provisions aud his action ~ not t'nahe
They pursued the statutory process and thereby col
ected part of the tax They now sceE 10 collect the
rest Equally unsound the proposition that the ac
of the was an adjudication barring his
Both of the propositions are inconssten' wh Tue
expressed III the opinion OF the court III 'hc say
The provision Of the Act Of 1864 regard to paying
back duties errOncousy Illegally assessed was re-
enacted by the Act OF 1866 and i embodied ~ section
1870 Of the Revised Statutes. These provisions and
Inc provision. of section 1863. show that an assessment
aud collection of tereunder are not tega ded as
concluding taxlayr Is there any reason i9I holns
that IT he intended that an assessment and payment
Of tax should conclude the United states except AS To
the amount Of tax Ialdt certainty thrre can DC ho
more hold would be to say that coneealment or
mistake by The axpayer OF nesee or sosoh %" .n
part OF the assessor, Is 10 olc a' rs pnuiE go,
decision, and not only deprive the Government OF me
taxes to which the statute declares 1t to be entitled
hut gave taxpayers who do no make correct returns
an advantage over those who do.
After citing several cases. and commenting upon them
the DECISION concludes:
II an assessment he questioned by taxpayer IN
suit brought him 10 recover back taxes paid accord
lug 10 the assessment, and III sait brought by the
United against him on the assessment IL j. uih
cult 10 see why the United states are com
planning 10 recover taxes omitted from the assesslnrni
should Ice regarded conclusive against the United
STATES. -
All fine legal propositions coutcndcd FOR the part OF
te dcfrndant have been The npor OF
the questions involved, ana the eaIhcstHtss ana .DiH
with which they have bccn discussed both sides de
mtuded tna they should receive full attention. As in me
Hazard case the stress Of the argument on
the part has been 10 attack tie decision
OF tie supreme Court III the savings bank case la tue
argument the defendant, II J. SAID that the Supreme
Court III case invented judicial device 10 save the
los OF a Tax. IL may safely be lett Ia that Court 10 VIM
dcatc necessary its decision. II Is the duty OF TINS
Court faithfully to interpret that decision. and to apply
IL 20 other cases a. they arise.
The demurrer nterposcd by the plaintiffs Is sustained
DistrlctAtt0rney Stewart l.. W0odtOrd ana Roger d.
Sherman appeared Tor the plaintiffs James EmOt
Aaron j. Vanderpoe Thomas Harland, aud Charles f.
stone for the defendant