The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1913-12-04
INCOME TAX FAYORS
RICH, SAYS COCHRAN
Attacks Measure as Invalid in
Test Suit for Elsie
De Wolfe.
POINTS OUT INJUSTICE
Sees S75O,OOO.OOO Revenue II
Very Rich Bear Burden Now
Put on Others.

W VII ONhChSs
A complaint attacking the constitution
ality Of the new income tax was filed yes-
terday in the United States Court for the
Northern District of Illinois by w. Bourke
Cochran. acting as counsel for Elsie De
Wolfe
The complaint alleges that the new law
is not uniform throughout the Cnited
States as required by section s. Article l..
of the Constitution. and that the tax
before the law
one OF a good many interesting charges
against the tax is that /, d!scriininates
against persons possessing moderately
comfortable income and in favor of those
who enjoy incomes OF such size that they
cannot spend what they have.
Again II Is set forth that the tax is
imposed on but $4,000 persons ou, of
population of some 90. 600. 600. and the
said persons or class on whom 1t is thus
attempted to impose said tax have never
consented to its imposition"
Trust Company Ia Defendant.
The attorneys of record are Fyif- 4
Ryner. a Chicago firm. The defendant In
the case is the Continental and Com
mercial Trust and Savings Bank. Curpo-
ration organized under the laws of llh-
nois The plaintiff is resident of N"w
York State. residing at Versailles France.
The complsint is based OIL the refusal
NJ the Continental and Commercial Trust
ard Savings Bank to pay coupons on
bonds of tho Appalachian Power Conn
pany. a Virginia corporation. bccaus. the
plaintiff declined To- sign a ccrtficat" pre-
scr'bcd by the United States Government
stating whether or not sh" claimed
exemption from the tax levied against
certain incomes by the income tax. The
action is brought under paragraph D.
section ~. chapter of the Judicial Cod"
The reasons why til" tan violates every
element OF equality" ar" summarized in
the complaint as follows,
"The income Of the plalntiff n being over
100000 a year. she is liable not merely
TO IA taN of one per cont. upon her whole
income i.a- exoss.- of. -x2.ae.so6g beisis a
single woman. but she lis subject to an
on that portion of her income which nay
exceed $4,000. but is loss than $4,000 ,
an additional one per cent. Oh all income
/ which may exceed $4,000 but is less
than s75. .0o0. and an additional one per
cent. on all incono which may exceed
s75 .o00 but is less than 100000.
! says Very Rich Are Favored.
"On the other hard. persons with in
comes exceeding 500 600 are taxed but an
additional | per cent. ON the whole excess
up to $3.50, ,000--that is to say, on such eN
I cess they would be required to pay hut
| one-slxth of the rate levied on plaintiff,
whose income is less than 100000: those
! persons whose incomes exceed s250.000 a
! year are taxed but per cent, on the Who'll,
excess up 10 sjoo,0oO-that is TO say, they
are required to pay but one-tcnth of the
rate levied on plaintiff. and those person
! with incomes exceeding Soo0,0 are sub
ject TO a penalty OF but per cent add
tonal no matter how great may be ths
annual revenues enjoyed by them whereas
! il all persons whose incomes exceed Sloo,-
600 year were taxed in the same proper
ton as plaintiff, those with incomes OF
| $3.50 900 would be subject not TO the ad-
ditionai penalty OF per cent. which this
I statute imposes on them. hut to a penalty
of 10 per cent those with incomes OF
! $4,000 year would be subject not tt
| a penalty Of 6 per cent. which this statute
! imposes on them, but TO a penalty of -
per cent. those with incomes Of $1,000. 00l
/ a year would be subject not to a penalt;
/ of per cent. which this statute imposes
| on them, but to penalty Of 40 per cent
those with incomes OF $2,50o,000 and over
, instead of being subject to "A penalty OF
7 per cent. which this statute imposes oi
them. would he compelled to pay a pen
. atty of 100 per cent, that rs to say. they
would be required to pay the entire eNces,
OF their income over so,5O0,O00 n veal
into the public treasury
Might Raise x75O,OOO, 900.
The complaint proceeds In this way
plaintiff further alleges on informa
ton and belief that the total revenue
which would be yielded annually by th
| proposed income taX il II were ACTUALLY
levied, would not exceed $50 900
while if the tax sought to be imposed ol
plaintiff were made uniform upon all per
sons the total revenues derived would eN
ceed 750.00O.OOO annually--a sum suf
flcient to dcfray practically the whole eN
penses OF the Government. and thus lib
crate the people OF these United State
from any further taxation whatever 70
Federal purposes.
The complaint concludes
plaintiff therefore alleges that in pc
nalizing with such severity incomes sue
AS hers. while allowing possessors OF in
comes exceeding 100000 to escape wit
such wholly disproportionate penalt,
this alleged income tax undertakes I
deprive plaintiff of her property wthou
due process Of law. contrary to the FIT
Amendment of the Constitution. and ur
dertakes to deny her equal protection G
the laws. contrary to the Fourteent
Amendment, In that II discriminate
, unjustly against those who gain the
incomes from industrial pursuits whic
, necessarily bPnent the community and
favor Of persons who neither toll nor spil
yet who on account OF their enormol
possessions necessarily require the large
and most frequent exercise of its power
| rnr nf tho