The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1897-08-26

T,r meuy years it has not been
ua..rulu TOR the owners of money,
.a1yert credits in the shape OF
"or,c. W 10 eyade taxation by q trick |
"h,cb no pains were taken to con-
,,I For ulustration, at or about tax |
i,os;nc time. some owners of money |
n apy ouantity would arrange to
,suporarlly exchange this particular |
Drpel.y for an equal value in Uni
rd states bank notes, or United
states treasury notes, which species
Of money and property up to 1895
beGeye, was non-taxable under the
laws Of the United States. Having
made this exchange, they would
ipstifv 20 themselves their conduct
IN not giving in this value for tax
alton ON the ground that they were
the po.sessors of non-taxable values.
Some people who have practiced
this trcI, Of evasion may be continu-
ing 1t today, because Of q want of
knowledge of the fact that in 1895,
the Juited States Congress passed
an act which permits the taxation of
United States treasury notes and
bank notes by the States, at the same
rate of taxation as is imposed on
: other kinds of property. The prac
tce of this evasion now is as illegal
as an attempt to evade paying taxes
on any other kind Of property, for
our present machinery act provides
that any one who, to evade pay
ment Of taxes on property, surren-
ders or exchanges that property in
any bank for non-paying security,
and then after the date Of listing
property has past, reconverts that
property to its former shape, is
guilty of misdemeanor.
There is another method by which
holders of solvent credits largely
excuse themselves for not listing
them for taxation. For instance,
the holder of mortgage or of the
certificate of storage of cotton or
tobacco, or other material in the
hands Of commission merchant,
may find it convenient to hypothe-
cate these credits, and this hypothe
cation may involve sending them out
OF the State. Many people may
think that these credits being thus
hypothecated are no longer in their
possession, or at lea st they may as
sumo that they are not in their pos
session, but I know of no law that
iustifes such an assumption. A case
was once called TO my attention III
which credits of this kind amount
ing to 5000 had been hypothecated
out of the State for So. 500. The
owner of these credits did not list
any part of them for taxation. Un-
der our law, he would be entitled to
deduct the amount owed by him
from the amount owing to him, and
this would make him liable for tax
alton on $1,000 in this particular
case. The too common rule however,
is for the owner of securities hypo-
theeated In such a manner to assume
to himself that he owns nothing, not
immediately in his hands.
The subject of "Solvent Credits"
is one that could be diseoursed upon
almost indefinitely. 1t is one which
has been q matter or more concern
and trouble to the trainers of reve
nue. acts, the country oyer, than all
other subjects combined. Many
States have adopted very stringent
laws, with view to secure q full
llstment of what is commonly in
cluded IN solvent credits, but no law
seems to have ever been apparently
successful in accomplishing the end
sought. Our own law is perhaps as
stringent as any concerning the fail
ure or refusal to make a proper re-
turn of them, but we have no ma
chinery to ascertain whether or not
such proper return is made. We
could illustrate by citing the
fact that In this State an individual
who makes false return of prop
erty of any kind, shall be guilty of
perjury. This looks simple and COM
paratlvely harmless to the ordinary
reader, but our penal code prescribes
as a punishment for perjury, a fine
which may amount to ST. 900 and i'm
prlsonment in the county Jail or
penitentiary of not less than four
months or more than ten years. This
provision of the law however, seems
10 have no terror to tax payers gen.
orally, for we can recall no case IN
this State of person charged with
perjury in making tax returns, and
no machinery is provided to discover
whether or not the tax payer is ever
guilty of perjury within the meaning
OF this provision. Some States have
prescribed specific punishment fol
fraudulent listing of this kind o.
property, and it may bo interesting
TO note some of these laws, as evi
dence of the kind of faith that thos'
States have in the integrity of thei
citizens, and also as an illustration
OF an effort to induce citizens t
make proper returns.
Massachusetts provides for tn
fraudulent listing and return o
property, a specfis punishment OF
me Of 81 900 and Imprisonment on
year.
Pennsylvania imposes q punish
ment OF fine not exceeding $500
Imprisonment and solitary confine
ment at labor for seven years, an
perpetual disqualification as a wit
ness IN any matter or controversy.
Missouri imposes fine of thre
umes the amount of tax that vOul
oe due on q true return, and pur
iShment the same as that for pei
jury.
kentucky provides a punishmer
OF fine of $500 and q payment {
tnree times the amount of tax upo
'ne real value of the estate.
Indiana makes fraudulent retur
subject to fine of $4,000.
other States have various punisl
ments, but all seem to be defecti,
IN such machinery as would lead
Tue detection of fraudulent return
even II one were suspected. 1t ms
S Se interesting to know that SON
eea'es are not willing to trust the