The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-04-18
WAITING ON A DECISION
PAYMENT OF OCCUPATION TAXES
AND VEHICLE LICENSES.
The construction Put Upon the Matter
by Controller Bre~unig-Other
Municipal Affairs.

Controller Breunig and the police de-
partmsnt are waiting anxiously Judge Car
ter's decision on whether the city is le-
gally empowered TO compel citizens en-
gagged i'm certain kinds of business to pay
both occupation taxes and vehicle licenses.
Hundreds of people are holding back for
the courts opinion before coming to time
with their licenses, and dozens OF arrests
have been made by order of Superintendent
Taffe Of persons who have been found US
ing drays and transfer wagons on which
there were no 1902 license tags. The con-
troller's anxiety arises from the fact that
if Judge Carter hands down a decision say
ing that the city has no right TO charge
what in some quarters is regarded as a
double tax il will mean a loss of several
thousands of dollars annually to the city.
Just at this time. when the city needs
every cent it can rake and scrape for i'm
provement work and current expenses. a
decrease in revenue of from $4,000 to $500
annually would make a big hole in the con-
troller's resources.
The controversy which has arisen Is not
a new thing. although payment of both oc-
cupation and vehicle taxes have been more
bitterly fought this spring than ever be-
fore. Controller Breunig explained the
matter from the point of view of the city
government yesterday in this way: "In 1889
there was an ordinance passed placing a
tax on certain kinds of vehicles used for
hire. The tax on express wagons was
placed at s., the tax on hacks So, l be-
lieVe. 1t was enacted for the purpose Of
enabling the city TO get returns from peo-
pie engaged in occupations that are con-
stitutionally taxable. In 1893 the present
vehicle license was passed. which makes 1t
obligatory on persons using vehicles of all
kinds to take out a license. 1t takes i'm all
persons using vehicles, private convey
ances as we'll as those used for hire. 1t
was passed so that the city could obtain
revenue for keeping up the streets from
all persons who helped wear them out by
driving conveyaDces of any kind. For sew
eral years no resistance was made by any
one who is affected by both, so far as L
know, to paying the two taxes. Last year
the Hogan Transfer Company refused to
take out vehicle licenses for the reason, it
said, that IL did not propose to be taxed
twice by paying both an occupation tax and
a vehicle tax. Since that time other COM
panieS engaged in the same business have
also made objection and at the present
time we are having trouble with many
people having vehicles for hire.
The fact Of the matter is, though il
seems hard for people TO get il through
their heads, that there Is no double tax i'm
any sense of the word. Any company, such
as a transfer or a livery company that
hGCUS NOlNEgd ICEo lOl nAiC W Tx people,
should be taxed on its occupation the same
as hucksters are taxed. The fact that il
may have vehicles that wear out the
streets is quite another matter and should
be so considered. There is no reason why
these companies should not pay a separate
vehicle tax like private citizens. Then, too,
stores and business institutions which keep
vehicles for use I'm hauling their own COM
modities are not charged an occupation
tax. They pay simply for a vehicle Ii
cense."
Councilman John l.. Mcfarland is one of
those who is resisting the payment both
of the occupation tax and the vehicle Ii
cense. Mr.. Mcfarland believes the city has
no right to charge him a double assessment
for his wagons. He is engaged in the trans
fer business and says that the double rate
makes il excessively burdensome. Other
transfer companies take the same stand.
Judge Carriers decision is expected some
time this week. Controller Breunig is of
opinion that il will sustain the city in the
contention that both taxes are legal.