Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-11-28
Tax Collection Unrestrained.

TAX collection UnreStrained.
1T must be remembered that the question
was one purely and simply of internal reve-
nue.. Section 1924, Revised Statutes of the
United States, provides that No suit for
the purpose of restraining the assessment
or collection of any tax, shall be main
tanned in any court That. of course means
a tax due or claimed to be due to the gov
eminent of the United States.
THE courts have upheld that section of
the Revised Statutes in many well-con-
sidered cases, and they have held also that
the constitutionality of law cannot be in
Quired into in an Injunction suit-in other
words, have said that purely Injunction
bills cannot be maintained to restrain the
collection Of taxes upon the sole ground of
the unconstitut!onality of the law While
these principles of law may seem quite
harsh, history will teach US that all civil
liked nations have in effect the same rule
because 1t is in the nature Of self preserya-
ton for governments.
when we remember that the law provides
a way to judicially determine the legality
of a tax assessed this rule then seems but
reasonable. l know legally of no way to
test the validity of any internal revenue
tax, save to pay It, ask the commissioner
II the refunding claim Is rejected, tossue
the collector who collected 1t. This has al
ways been followed save in this instance.
Pollock was a stakeholder in the Farmers
Loan and Trust Company. He brought
the suit in injunction against the company
(as a stockholder) to enjoin or restrain It
(the company from making the return
required by the income tax law and from
paying the tax. The United States circuit
court refused the relief prayed for and Pol
lock appealed to the Supreme Court Now.
If there ever was what is called a friendly
suit brought, this was it. the plaintife
and the defendant both bending every effort
to get the same judgment, and to get 1t as
soon as possible the attorneys engaged
on either side working in such complete
harmony as to make one wonder II there
really was an issue to be decided.
The plaintiff and the defendant being
on the same side of the case, small ques-
tons like that Of the Jurisdiction of the
son, did not trouble either side, and the is-
sues to be decided were easily arranged. 80
as to drive the court into a funnel with
each party to the suit desired. It was GER
tainly true that a complete answer by the
Farmers Loan and Trust Company to the
suit of Pollock SO as to GUST the United
States court of jurisdiction would have
been the pleas.
A Complete Answer.
First. That while Pollock resided in
Massachusetts, and brought suit against
New York corporation in New York, his
interest did not amount to the sum Of
5000, the sum necessary to give federal
courls JufiSuicuoh III SuieS peS"een ciuzens
of different states. He claimed only to own
5000 par value of the 81 100000 Of stock of
the company. and at per cent would only
be $3.50 per year. and the tax was assessed
by the year, and II 1t ran during the life
OF the law, until January, 1900 the amount
which he could lose, even If his dividends
were entirely cut OF by the income tax,
was only a little In excess of 81 500.
Second plea, That the threatened act Of
the defendant company Of which Pollock
complained In his bill. was a compliance
with the provisions Of q United States
statute, and while 1t had not threatened to
pay this tax loud enough to disturb the