The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-04-19
MOVE FOR INCOME TAX.


tax legislation under the constitution
as ii is, without the proposed income
fax amendment, has been sprung al
ready in the extra session. Repre-
sentative Cordcll Hull of Tennessee has
introduced bill ''to provide revennc
for the Government by lovying spe-
cial excise tax with respect 10 doing
business by persons 1t provides that
all persons resident in the United States
shall be made subject 10 a tax which
is to be equivalent TO one per cent on
their entire net income above $1,000,
this for the privilege of DONG bust
ness, the imposition of the tax being
merely Il gauge for the asccrtaiumcnt
of the value 10 the person of the priv
ilegc Of doing business, as set forth IN
this proposed excise law
The measure follows the exact word
ing OF the corporation income tax law,
which recently was held to be valid
by the unanimous voice of all the mem
bers of the United States Supreme
Court, The only change is that the
word "pcrsons" is substituted for the
word corporations The amount of
exemption is als) the same as for cor
po:ations.
1t has been pointed out repeatedly
in reviews. summaries, and analyses of
the Su- rene Cour; decision, that the
wording of that decision would prob
ably open the way for an income tax
provided il were laid as an excise upon
the privilege of doing business, III place
of directly upon the porson rs an in
dividual and on his revenue from real
estate by way of rents. leases and the
like. these lnttcr being held 10 be dl-
rect taxes. and 50 obnoxious to the Fed
crai Constitution,
There are not wanting those who
held however. that the corporation
privilege covered by the income tax
law. which the Supreme Court says is
an excise on the privilege of corpo
ration doing business as a corporation
would net apply in the same way to
natural persons. 1t is certain, however
that The distinction would have to be
drawn very fine us between the two
in case the court should hold the excise
lax upon individuals for doing business
to be invalid. while the excise tax upon
! corporations for tho privncgc of doing
business i, held valid. The line of de
narkation would be 50 very intangible
81 L.. IL, in
deed in finding against this proposed
o.cise. after maintaining the validity
OF the corporation income tax.
II is understood that Representative
| Hull has the backing of the House
Wavs and Means Committee in the in
PRODUCTION of this income tax measure
which imposes such excise upon tn,
privilege Of persons doing business. II
so. 1t is likely that the House Will pas
the measure. and there will appear Il
be no reason why the Senate SHOULD
not also pass it. Certainly everyone
would be glad TO see the case put NJ
to tho Supreme Court in this form. il
the court should affirm the validity OF
such excise tax upon persons for theil
privilege Of doing business. rs il has
done as 10 corporations. then we would
have the income tax valid and approved
without tho income tax amendment. II
on the other band, The court shoulc
rule against inc excise tax upon indi
vidual income. while Hpbolding the cx
else tex upon corporation income. In,
effect would doubtless be TO obscure
the whole question. and the .practca
result would be that corporations, il
order to avoid this discriminating TAI
against the corporation form OF don;