New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-12-23
FIGHTING THE INCOME TAX.
4 SUIT TO TEST ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY
BEGUN.
John C. MOORE. OF NETWORK. ASKS FOR AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST TIE COMMISSIONER


INJUNCTION AGAINST TIE COMMISSIONER
or INTERNAL REVENUE.
Washington Dec. 1.-The first case TO test the
,,.iitutjonality OF the Income Tax law has been
brought in the Supreme Court of the District of
columbia The petitioner Is John G. Moore OF the
arm Of Moore 4 Schley. No. 50 Broadway New
Work He proposes 10 fight the case through the
-,,reme Court of the United States. His attorneys
49,, ex-senator George +. Edmunds and Messrs.
shelabarger and Wilson. The petition Is for an III
junction to restrain the Commissioner OF Internal
revenue from collecting the tax. 1t sets ont that
tho complainant is shareholder in various corpora
,ions which pay dividends to said complainant;
..bat independent of and In addition to said dvi-
sends your complainant has an income. derived
,,n, the gains and profits of his business. and en-
brsced within Sections - and Is of the new farif
Inv LARGELY in excess Of the sum Of $1,000 per
snnum and upon which income the Commissioner
= Internal Revenue has threatened to. and unless
restrained by this honorable court. will proceed to
assess the Of per cent on the amount IN
.ss of 5000 per annum." The bill proceeds:
your complainant further shows that by Section
% NJ the new Tariff law the corporations herein
before referred to are also REQUIRED To pay TAX
OF . per cent on the net earnihgS, IespeosNrii
without regard to any dividends paid out or sad
Ne, earnings. and by Sections y and y or SAID
Oct your complainant is required to pay IKE TAX
mon the said moneys so pala to MIN as uiVluenos
nv said corporations respectively. thereby wrong
fully duplicating the tax on your tGinPia'Ia,i,.
and by reference TO Section - OF said act' your
,,,ul
com unjust and unequal in that it discrminates
gsins; Your complainant for the purposes OF TAXA
Ton! ION Ststes and wholly exempts such persons
I'm taxation as aforesaid who have an income
- any amount up 20 and not in excess OF the sum
=. ~ ssGn1 per annum and thereby your complain
on, and ali others in the same condition with your
Complainant. are denied the equal pro'ec'oh Oh 'ne
aa and your complainant further by reference 10
S~us TO the court that there is associated with
the taxation of citizens of the United states; ana
sod tax
ssopsrable therefrom. the provision that persons,
Who are aliens but who reside IN tne n.ttu
sbaiI likewise be subject to the payment OF SAID
TAX U such income derived wholly from rents
9nterests dividends, salaries or from any pr1les-
LIN trade employment vocation carried on
son, hare thon in the United States-thus under
taEi"r nnlawfuly and without authority, TO YAK
b Incomes of citizens of foreign countries anen
~ the United States. who may nave Wltnh tle
United states a temporary residence; LOT Ell ~
norarv purposes. although such incomes . arr U
rrjved wholly from sources not within the Jurisoc-
lion of the United States. ~ . u...uo,,, -
cc,icn 20 Of said act, shows 10 the court ina,
no exemption e made in the sad az, rom ,s sSiu
,Sa inited states of which there are many
which although carried on Tor pront; ar nF tb
e,,nsi ana oDerated by the several states OF thIS
fMinn "i respectvely as Observation-Disclosures and
agencies of the governments OF oI,na and Other
States and in promotion OF the pohce anu ot and
nnhlic functions and policies of SUCH STATES, anu
which corporations so beng agencies re T o subject
60 taxatior by the United States; ana your coI',
,lsiuanf further. by reference 10 Sdlt az 'N''
% tbe court that, by the provisions thereoI, az
sossmenis are TO be made upon the sara income
~ vour complainant and others that had peeil
oarned and received by your complainant PRIOR 10
,Sa lime at which said provisions OF said act TOOK
eject and that all the said taxes heren1peloa
mentioned attempted to be assessor anu So,!touri
non incomes are not within the constitutional
Jurisdiction Of Congress to impose. -. 49,, go,
Your complainant further shows that the ON
rojssioner of Internal Revenue as aloresald Il
,breateninc and intending and proceeding 10 take
stems 10 make an assessment against your COM
claimant and TO collect the same, not only Tor tne
come hereinbefore referred 10. for the hrst Near
income subjected to taxation by said act but also
by the requirements of said act LOT incomes meie
after 10 arise. from year to year. conilhuouSI!
until tho wear 1900: and the said Defendant ana
his successors In said Office. unless restrained pN
Inc action of this court. will certainly continue
10 assess your complainant, from year 10 year
mill the commencement of the said laSt-named
wear and TO collect such assessments.
Recause of all the matters hereinbefore set iorth
and because of other defects and invaIidiy OF sara
income tax enactment. which appear upon the race
az said act your complainant AYERS and charges
that said act Is invalid in its provisions inopera
tive and void. He therefore prays for a writ or
j1iunction to restrain the Commissioner OF Inter
nal Revenue and all persons acting under him
from doing any looking to the collection OF SAID
income tax in the foregoing bill OF complaint
mentioned and described.