New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-01
INCOME TAX PROBLEMS.
THE PUBLIC FLOUNDERING IN DOUBT
OVER THE NEW LAW.

FAMILY INCOMES AND THE coLLEcToRs-INFoR-
NATION SOUGHT FOR ON MANY PER-
PLExING POINTS OF THE LAW
To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: Among the statements made by the collectors
in regard to the Income Tax law Is one with ref
erence to the deduction Of only sum Of 1900
from the aggregate income" Of family which
have been surprised to thus far go unchalenged
To take the extreme which the collectors
themselves have put-and II their construction OF
the law be correct even this would be within
tiff husband wife and minor child nave an IN
come OF $500 EACH the husband must return an in
come of $500 and pay tax on $500 The proposition
Is little less than absurd.
The law requires all persons Of lawful age having
more than $500 annual income to make a return,
and expressly says that persons having less need
make Here, then, upon the HYPOTHESIS are
three distinct persons, one Of whom has more
than $500 and each of whom Is by the express IAN
guage OF the act mot required to make any report
at all Yet the collectors announce-and the oHicai
blanks have been drawn-that one or them must
make a return, and must include in 1t the incomes
OF the others. This seems at first blush a htue
strange How Is II supported? In this way: In
another section the act says that only one deduc
ton OF 1900 shall be made from the aggregate IN
| come of all the members of any one family. Does
| this provision Justify the collectors claim!
To begin with, by what authority do they single
that 'all persons having" etc. shall make return
and beyond dispute. II married woman has an
J income over $500, she must make return H.
| then. incomes less than $500 may be added 10 make
| an amount over this what is there In the act ~hich
| entities the collectors to say that when so ADDED
| the husband instead Of the WIFE must make the
| return? II the tax be finally paid, II may make
little practical difference to be sure. who pays H.
But a refusal TO make 1t or to answer quesuonS
thereafter put to enable the collector to make IL
may entail the proceedings provided for In the act.
The collectors tacitly assume that, without worn
70 that effect in the law itself they can elect ID
| demand the report from the husband rather tina u
| the wife. and thus cast upon him all suDsequent
more gallant course. and even the husband would
prefer It, but are not dealing Win gaiianuS , ,Dr
E foT IT? anu We a." ANN."' a.aon..
! solely upon inference and argument Inc law
nowhere explicitly says what they claim 10 De T au
it is well settled that a revenue law. If there be
any doubt will construed In favor OF the citizen
! and against the Government. Can any one deny
! Iha, t6ere IS AZ least a doubt whether any such
! thing be intended this aggregation ana taxauon
"i nnrenrnabie? Again. Il is one OF the most
familiar rules Of statutory construction that enect
must possible. be given 10 every part Oh So sJas
ute and seeming contradictions or incons's L.
II any exist must be reconciled II THIS can De nore.
! The collectors claim certainly makes contradlc-
ton between the express language OF inc ac' het
ooe quoted and this other %ngadse Ibe" contrn
! the claim is argumentatlyely based Inns coH n "a,
diction. the collectors tae.ty assert mus, en
| EXPRESS language giving way 10 lHe
! which Is certainly a novel proposition - -.
But It is worth while to spend mucn more more
time upon this question. II is more consonant WIN
| common sense and with the rule Just referred 10
| giving effect II possible to every part Of statute
! instead OF multiplying one part OF II by mere COT
g,ruction OF another part-to conclude that the cor
iectors a re- wrong II say that no one need max
| any return unless he himself have an income over
| g 800 nor pay any tax unless the income ekceeu
| u90 We are not only giving an effect 10 part OF
The statute but standing upon its express language
/ II we saw next that when in any one famlIy W.
! ar moro members have each an income over NcO
each must make a report. We stand again upon tl'
cxnress language OF the statute. II We say, lastly
! that when more than one of these family incomes
exceed 5000 only sum OF sfOoo VIII pc ueuuste
| from, The aggregate we certainly are giving eHecl
! To- the provision which the collectors rely and
main people may think that We arc here aIso
| standing upon the express language OF the statute
| ins.ood OF relying upon inference and argument
| Al any rate nullifying no part OF tne stat
ute. ,rf.oh'H' ~ "i'''''N'
| Ncv-york March q 1896