New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-04-11
POINTS OVERLOOKED BY THE COURT
THOMAS HARLAND SHOWS WHERE A FULL con
SHERATON OF THE REAL ESTATE CUES
TONS WOULD HAVE RESULTED


SHERATON OF THE REAL ESTATE CUES
TONS WOULD HAVE RESULTED
INA DIFFERENT DECISION.
Thomas Harland. the lawyer. of No % Nassau
st. who is regarded an authority on internal rev.
matters and has given interviews regarding
the income tax which have been published fully in
The Tribune, said yesterday
The carefully the decision Of the Supreme
Court In the income tax is considered the more
clear does IL appear that the decision was rendered
without full consideration of all the points in
VOWED. There discussion of those pro-
visions OF the law which regulate the returns ana
therefore. assumed that the mistaken Interpretation
which has been placed by the Commissioner OF IN
and that therefore there was public necessity
that they should render their decision before
1t is a well-settled rule in the construction Of
statutes that when some single provision is found
70 be unconstitutional and that provision Is not so
moved WIN ed the other parts To-
the effect which presumably intended by the
Legislature, the unconstitutional portion may De
equally well settled that when the unconstitutional
feature is intXtricably mixed with the rest tndt
to annul that portion and TO carry out the other
portions is manifesty defeat the intention OF the
Legislature, the whole must be declared void.
Now while II is true that it was urged by counsel
VINO appeared in opposition to the law that the tax
upon rents Of real estate WAS unconsttutGndI az
being the equivalent of direct tax on the real
estate itself and that the whole law was uncon-
sttutona by reason Of the presence OF tns reatuie
not word was SAID In me %hoie aIguineht as
10 the effect that would result from annullng tn 8
urO
There is one result of the decision which did not
AZ first occur TO me, and which have not yet seen
alluded to J.? the various comments On the o., o.
cison which IS so far-reaching that ~ seems nm
possible that any judge would havG hclu any ioi
tion OF the law TO be constitutional aitcr dtctdhS
be void that portion OF the act "h,cH naS oe d
annulled. The Supreme Court mas are dirnc
within the meaning Of the ConstltutlGii, ana can
therefore be imposed only qnae. III taT an he
rents OF real estate Is the precise equEdlehl % d
tax on the real estate Itself, ana thereiorc Sucn
tax 10 be valid must be laid by IN" Iu'e Vi dPP'i-
10 possible distinction can be drawn between me
rents which owner OF real estd h e"n,e y, her
nerson and the profit which such owner may re-
ceive from such real estate II ne occIio' az mann
1t himself II firm. engaged u, ,b are the prop
featuring occupies premises "hicn a." ,h rrIe vas
er,v az q single member Of the firm the iuie w.;
when rents Of real estate were deenen naiI ar al
the firm charged the amount OF rem Pei Lueiness
inv,od 10 ,he 6yvner as an expense or tne Dus'io
and that ne would include the amount -. arnre a. ION
in his individual return Cn H vnuId sill charge
The mann ~ the rent az item OF eNpehns a ha
the owner of the property Woul1 aiSo 49, f. II
amount in making up ms diiry instead OF being
owned bv ono member Of the firm - OWL ~
firm itself the rental value Oh b . n is
NAV be treated as expense! Cti'i c"iiecting q
Main tbst H. irnited States would be coHec""9
tax upon the real estate itself , csta,e rents
II a man owning two p PIE other Himself for tn,
pIrnose Of arriving on a business. ina. 20, m.
the profit realized by him which repnertV is a.
rental value Of one p9rom me real estate Itself a,
is the amount he receives H"'' -"
other portion. a., o,rion said. There
was M 6istinction between an annual ltMd ieef
value Of the land ana IAN on s.,aid cou,d not be
Constitutional provisions, "s,Sh.,ancc and not tn
for G bio,y thai was TO prevail IN & ai,,s
them" Under this language. = 60 ---------