The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-09-11
ADVERTISE HONOLULU
placed at 81 300 or even So 600, few 1A;-,

few a.
tended that Congress- in doing had Aeana would have o
view OF the increased cost of living at this It's powe
other times the difference between either - - compared Will
Saooo Is not so great as to Justify the courts rs amounts and
all OF the income tax provisions The basis Striking down
exemptions rest is that the general welfare upon which s
ing incomes, such exemption should he @ 4ores that u,
the annual expenses of the average faiI VIII arly cover
the members OF such families becomino l us prevent
lic." '''Ec apol fe mI
Mr.. Justice Brown said Oh 693l
Irrespective, however, of the Constitute, =.
wanting In uniformity among members OF thu, s winch
may be, Invalid But this does not deprive IV 1AS Or
the power to make exemptions provided t eSatur Of
upon some principle, and are not purely sr pNo& rest
solely for the purpose;o favoring some per or created
sons mus IN every civilized country there is IN s Per
s,ah incomes, winch 1t would be manifest cruelty f.
the power to make such exemptions once granted - AL &d
within the discretion of the legislature and 81 amounts
Is not wanony abused, the courts are bound IL '.a' power
this law there is exemption of 81 900 which -
pose OF the part of Congress that the burden Of t
tall on the wealthy, at least upon the wet4 W. snail
VINO nave the income property beyond their uFa
are not the pay taxes it is difcult 10 @ NEEDS
other words, enlightened taxation imposed UPON n
not upon persons Poll taxes formerly d
revenue are now practically obsolete The exemption
Is designed undoubtedly to cover the aenal lv; " yhUN
the large majority of families" f''0sa
In Winot 4. Winthrop, 1862 Mass 119. the coa4 h.,a
the legislature acted within its discretion in making
OF $4,000 IN an inheritance tax law although the Cn
required the tax to be reasonable No doubt an eyet
such law might be larger than an income tax law 1
such constitutional provision.
As shown by the above references the amount of m 49,.
ton of this kind is largely within the discretion Of b G
ure and the court say that abused its discretion
instance
b The Act provides in Section that "only one duc
OF one thousand dollars shall be made from the aggrea .
income OF all members of family composed Of one b
parents and minor children or husband and VITA
that guardians shall be allowed make deduction in favor
OF each and every ward except where or more wards ara
comprised IN family in which the aggregate deduction
their favor shall exceed one thousand dollars
It contended that this provision discmnates between m
and small families, between married and unmarried persons
pecaly If the wife well the husband earning an income
and between two wards comprised in one family and
wards not comprised in one family.
Similar provisions were made in the Federal income tax lava
but though the arguments urged against them the
cases above cited believe member of the court ALLUDED
them Mr.. Assistant Attorney General Whitney referred
them in his argument as follows
Objecton is further made that but one exemption allowed
to each family, whether its income belong member @
contributed by more than oneha is when the family
ssts of husband and wife, or parents and minor children that
the income combined by the law This coroa?
to the reasoning upon which the law based Two families
equal size and pecunary ability may be presumed to suffer
the same extent from upon consumption whether the
come all belongs to member of the family or not"
1t is impossible to attain absolute equality uniformly
taxation Approximate equality and uniformity all that
required The Legislature may classify objects and provide dit
feren methods of estimating amounts values So long asst
acts in good faith and general lines and makes distinctions
on reasonable basis the courts interfere The pro
visions IN question be in harmony with the general
theory of the Act The Act deal with units whether
corporate private. 1t treats unit all whether few
many large SMALL whose income incomes the one m
and expenses the other hand combined Taxation laws
must be practical They cannot be uopan Perhaps no two
persons would agree to just what perfect tax law should
1t is easy to raise objections but the attempt mace
to obvate the objections by framing the law differently new
objections arise If the housanddoar exemption were mace
to apply to each individual there would doubtless be ma
greater inequality in actual results than the under the @
as it stands, as will appear by little reflection.
c) Section g. which prescribes the method of estimating
comes provides that they shall include among other n
the of sales of all movable property less the amour
expended the purchase production of the same and w
of person not including any part thereof consumed d
ly by him or his family"
It is contended that this is discrimination IN favor Of ~
agriculturss against other persons !,
The provision general 1t is not confined to any w.
class 1t is invalid because operates differently Oh M
ent members of the community. AS well might 1t pc E
that the carriage invalid because it discrmlnaNs ~
of carriage against carriage owners Inc
in question acts uniformly upon all within its scope
remarked above, laws must be practical II t