The sun., 1895-03-23

While the Supreme Court of the United
States is considering whether the odious
income tax does not violate the fundament-
al law OF the land, there is to appear in the
Internal Rcrenme Record of this city a re-
markable exposure of certain defects in the
&C: of Aug. %, 1894, which seem to be
fatal to its practical enforcement.
Mr.. THOMAS HARLAND, who rs Deputy
Commissioner of Internal Revenue for half a
dozen years, during and after the civil war;
was recognized authority on the Income
Tax law then in vogue, and especially ON
the provisions for executing such statutes
declares, in regard to the new law, that
1.-The machinery provided for its assess
ment is 50 inadequate that the Government
will be practically powerless to collect the
tax. unless it is willing to accept such re-
turns as taxpayers may voluntarily make"
and that, too, without any attempt to YER
ify their correctness.
How does he reach sucha conclusion In
the first place, he holds that, under the law,
no citizen is obliged to send or take the
statement of his income tax to the collector
The collector must go to the taxpayer and
get it. The statute requires every per-
son having a taxable income to make a re-
turn y of its amount to the collector or
deputy collector of his district on or before
April ) next. And il we should consider
nothing but section 20 of the new act, which
imposes an addition of so per cent. penalty
in the case of neglect or refusal to make and
render n return, "it might be construed"
says the eN-CommissiOner, las requiring
the taxpayer TO seek out the collector for
the purpose of rendering his return" But
on going on to section "a, he finds that in
case the return is not made by April 10, 1t
is the duty Of the collector or deputy col
lector to call at the residence or place of
business of the taxpayer for the pur-
pose of getting the return. Therefore
he regards it rs clear that the neglect or re-
fusal spoken of, which carries the statute
penalty of so per cent, can only he incurred
after such personal visit.
Each taxpayer must, of course, determine
forhimscf what is mos. prudent, as the case
, now stands for him to do; yet it is none
the less desirable to point ont what the
opinions and the official rulings OF former
Commissioners have been, while Mr.. HAIR
LAND holds also that the law as it stands
"still provides that no penalty shall be in
Cured for non-payment, unless payment is
delayed more than ten days after personal
service ot n demand for payment"
Passing now 10 second point, we find
NJ" nhRLANp asserting that, while every
person liable to the tax must make return.
yet this injunction is qualified by provision
that II he consents TO disclose to the col
lcctor the facts on which such p return
would be based, the latter. if desired to do
so, mus; make the return instead. That is
to say the duty of assessing really falls on
the taT gaihcve", and not on the taxpayer.
unless IN" lattcr prefers to assume it. This
Is precisely, too, what the Government oil
Ger mast do in case the rdxpayer nceects or
refuses 10 make return, except that with
oUt such neglect he proceeds on the III
formation given 10 him. But the law, in
View presumably OF the Government duty
implied in assessing, and of the practical
difficulties involved therein, and frally of
the judicial character OF such duty, allows
the taxpayer TO throw on the officer the task
of estimating. For example, in the tax on
Inherited property, the citizen, instead OF
going to the labor OF estimating piece by
piece the contents of a house which he has
furnished or TO the expense OF hiring an ex-
pert 10 estimate them, may show those con-
tents to the collector and require him to put