New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-10
THE INCOME TAX DECISION
1T HAS LEFT EVERYTHING AT SKIES AND
SEvENS. ilytl
TALK OF AN EXTRA SESSION REVIVED. AL
THOUGH 1T Is KNOWN THAT THE PRESIDENT
Is OPPOSED TO THE IDEA-oPrNIoNS
gAs TO THE EFFECT OF
THE DECISION.
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUHE.l

state bordering decentralization by the decision
Of the Supreme Court In the income tax cases.
AS that decision is being examined more closely.
and hitherto unexpected complications arise
in the construction OF that part OF the law left
undsturbed by the action Of the court. The
question for instance is asked whether the effect
OF the decision is not to include within the ex-
empt class not only rents proper, but all profits
OF whatever character growing out Of the owner
ship OF land. such as farm products, timber. coal,
etc. so that all real estate, including buildings
thereon, with whatever else is held by law to be
a part of the realty will be entirely exempt from
the tax Whether losses sustained through bad
rent debts and the amount Of expense incurred In
collecting rents repairs houses are TO be
deducted from incomes is also mooted question.
Under the decision. rents are not TO be included
in assessing the income tax. Suppose, 1t Is
asked a mans income is Of mixed character
that is, from real and personal property? Tho
former is exempt Can ne deduct the expenses
necessary for the collection Of his income from
realty from his income from personal property
before making a return? The question is puz-
zling the revenue collectors, and a legal opinion
on the point probably Will be sought
Another grave question raised by the decision
| Is whether the roadbed. roundhouses. stations.
etc, OF railroads are real estate or personal
|
laws Of several States said to differ on this
| point and on several othcrs Of equal Importance
! which are involved in the opinion OF the court.
But whate yer the number and character OF the
/ difficulties to be overcome in the collection or the
tax under the decision Of the court. there can be
| little doubt that nothing else could have served
| more clearly in demonstrating the criminal alb
! surd,ty OF the law than the fact that the action
! Of the Supreme Court adds 10 the number OF dis
tinct.ons contained In the original act. and still
| further emphasizes the spirit Of class legislation
which called It into life. 1t is peculiar that the
| very men who only a short time ago were alto
gether unmindful OF the unfair distinctions
drawn by the law are now loudest in their de-
nunciation of IT, AS long as the law aimed TO
assess nearly all OF those who by reason OF
! fortunate circumstances superior ability en-
| ioved incomes greater than 81 900. those who now
| complain had nothing to say, but with new
! b-divlson-constitutOnally correct-comes
| demand for the speedy demolition OF law that
now. according to everybody's admission. taxes
some OF the people to the detriment OF others
| The STAR this evening follows such legislation
to a logical conclusion when it says
Inequitably based taxation only result in
tionai debate over the undeslrabty OF classes
| other than those founded upon intelligence-ln
ty OF stock in a corporation rghtfuliy insists upon
contro so would the contributes 10 Ss lax upIn Ia
in demanding that their privileges In the matter OF
ssDanciai prominence forced upon them by a prac-
| tically Popust Congress
Discussing the decision OF the Court the Attor-
ney- General while explicitly denying that In the
course OF his argument Of the case ne had ad-
| mitted the unconstitutionaty Of a tax upon rents
derived from real estate remarked this afternoon:
So far as the lower courts are concerned, the d.
! vision OF the Supreme Court upon the Income Tax
| law is as binding II the whole Court had been
| unanimous in its favor | cannot believe that any
| ector from collecting the tax on incomes derived
from other sources than rents or State and ma-
action. The only way can see by which persons
object to PAYNE h the Tax can under Sn
entering suit for its recovery.
But there are other lawyers. equally familiar
| with the practical effect OF decisions of the Su-
preme Court OF the United States. who say that
the action Of the Court yesterday binds no judge
in respect Of the points as to which the court is
ev, My divided-not the Circuit Court for the
Southern District oc New-Y York in which the cases
| originated. should a Circuit Judge hold that the
law was unconsthutional,' said an attorney this
afternoon VINO has large practice In the Su-
preme Court Of the United States "and issue an
Injunction against the collection Il the tax-which,
however. is rather improbable in view Of the gen.
| ,ral practice Of courts-that would stand as the
law for tha; circuit. because II could not be over
turned by a divided court. Until there is full
bench. however. there does not appear to be much
probability of relief from the operation Of the law
| against incomes other than those derived from
| lands ana municipal and state bonds Even
! should a court render a judgment In favor OF
| man for the amount Of tax he had paid under pro-
test there is no provision in the law for a refund
in such a case. and the ltigant would have to
wait for Congress TO appropriate the money before
ne could get back unless the official to whom 1t
| was paid or his bondsmen. should voluntarily re-
coup the payer All the same, however. ! look
| upon the decision Of the Court yesterday as only
the beginning OF litigation respecting the law, and
| believe there will be much business for the law
yers.'
The impression so generally entertained. fol-
| lowing the announcement OF the opinion of the
| court in the Hyde and Pollock cases. that the
case OF John g. Moore for an injunction against
Internal Revenue Commissioner Miller. to pre-
vent him from carrying out the law In any
| particular had also been decided. was erroneous.
That case is still before the court. Judge Will
son. one OF Mr.. Moore's attorneys, said this after
| noon that they would proceed at the earliest
| practicable moment get case ready for the
court when 1t shall have a full complement CT
+ Justices on the bench.
| I'VE know" he said, "by the decision yester-l
day that upon the main question the court at
| present sitting is equally divided-so that nothing
| can be done until all the members are present.
1t would be possible. imagine, TO get a case be-
fore the court before 1t adjourns for the term.
| but hardly probable. and certainly II would be
useless We have had no consultation yet. and
| don't know what course We shall pursue. l am
arranging to get away f5r a week or ten days for
recreation and rest. and until return nothing
! will be done"
The many rumors and speculation concerning
| an investigation by the court OF the sources OF
| the alleged leaks by which their decision in
| the income tax case became known In advance OF
its announcement from the bench have no foun-
| dation AS was said this afternoon by gentle
man familiar with the situation: What Is there
to investigate? The papers did not publish any