El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1910-05-31
RPORAT|ON TAX
CASE RESET FOR
HEARING
Supreme Court VIII Hear
New Arguments on
Noted Cases.

Washington, D. c., May 31.-The SUI
preme court of the United States today
set the corporation taxes cases for re-
argument at the beginning of the next
term before the full bench
Taft's Idea.
President Taft is regarded as the
father of the corporation tax. idea as
represented in this statute. He evolved
il during the discussion of tariff leg
islation and income and inheritance
taxes In 190S-19O9. As a result. con-
gress inserted the Corporation Tax
I Law" into the Payne-Aldrich tariff
act passed by congress last summer.
1t became section of that statute.
Provisions of the Law.
The law subjected to the tax in a gen
eral way every corporation, joint stock
company, or association, organized for
profit and having a capital stock rep
resented by shares, and every insur-
ance company. The tax was desig-
mated as a special excise tax with re-
spect to the carrying on or doing bus
iness" and it was provided that 1t
should be equivalent TO one per cen
tum upon the entire net income over
and above $4,000 received from all
sources" during the year. There were
to be excluded from the income, how
upon stock of other organizations, sub
jected to the tax. Exempted from the
tax were certain organizations, such as
labor, agricultural, horticultural and
fraternal beneficiary societies.
Publicity of Returns
One paragraph of the law provided for
the publicity of the returns required as
a basis of fixing the tax
The tax was to be paid on or before
% NJ zach and the rpfnrnS
for each year were to be made by
March l. It was provided that the tax
should be paid for the year ending June
so, 1910. although the law was not
passed until August 3, 1908.
Not until shortly before the expir-
alton Of the time for the making of the
returns was the first move made 70
ment to test the great question about
corporation law started in the little
town of Windsor. Vermont
The Fight Starts.
There Maxwell EVartS, New York
lawyer, son of the late William NJ.
EvartS, has a summer home. He had Of
ten noticed the keen competition be-
tween the two general merchandise
stores in the town, the Stone Tracy
company, a corporation. and Dwight
Tuxbury & Sons. a partnership con-
Germ. He saw what he believed was a
discrimination against the corporation
if il were compelled to pay the
tax and make public its bust
ness arrangements, and so &C
cepted the position of counsel for Stel
Ia Flint as general guardian of the
property for Samuel n. Stone, jr, q mi
nor, who owned stock in the Stone
federal court by Mr.. Evarts to enjoin
the corporation from making the re-
turns and paying the tax, on the ground
that the law was unconstitutional. The
corporation filed a demurrer, which was
sustained and the bill dismissed. An
appeal was taken to the supreme court.
Signal for More Suits.
The institution of the Flint-Stone-
Tracy case was the signal for the
bringing of suits in many sections OF
the United States. All were decided in
exactly the same way, and almost In
varlabIy appeals were taken to the SUI
preme court The government was al
lowed to intervene. Fifteen cases,
headed by the Tracy suit,
were set for argument on March IA.
Many Cases Heard.
Besides the Vermont case, those heard
were;
Wyckoff Van Darhoef VS.. The Coney
Island and Brooklyn Railroad company.
Francis L. Hine VS. Home Life In
surance company, of New York.
Fred w Smith VS. The Northern Trust
company, of Chicago.
William II. Miner VS.. The Corn Ex-
change National Bank. of Chicago
Cedar Street company VS.. Park Realty
company, of New York.
Lewis ". Jared VS.. The American
Multigraph company, of Cleveland
Joseph e Gay VS.. The Baltic Mining
company, Michigan corporation.
Percy H. Brundage VS. Broadway Re
atty company, of New York
Paul Lacroix VS.. Motor Taximeter Cab
company, of New York.
Arthur Lyman vs.. marlborough Rapid
Transit company. of New Yark.
George Wendell Phillips VS.. Fifty AS
sociates, of Boston
oscar Mitchell VS.. Clark Iron Works.
a Minnesota corporation.
Katherine Cary Cook VS. Boston
Wharf company
Two Days In Argument.
Two days were consumed In the argu-
ment of the cases in the supreme court
William d. Guthrie. of New York,
counsel for the Home Life Insurance