Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1917-01-06

then they should be enacted as part OF
the District appropriations bill. Equtt-
able notifications Of the intangibles
tax will appropriately be made by Sem
ate injection into nm appropriations bill.
since the new intangibles tax was itself
thus enacted.
equitably amended this winter, or the
date when it shall go into effect should
be postponed.
Some Specific Amendments.
What specific amendments should be
proposed to the intangfbles tax laws
1. The scope of taxable intangfbles
should be much restricted. Our law AZ
1t now stands taxes all "moneys and
credits. including moneys loaned and
invested, bonds and shares of stock
except the stock of banks and other
corporations within the District, the
taxation of which Ii provided for in
the tax law of 1902 with subsequent
amendments.
This law taxes all credits without any
deduction for the corresponding debts.
and IL unm1stakably double taxation
Of the same property by the same tax
ing power.
1t taxes all loans and Investments, ms
well as all credits. No other state in
the new classification taxes all fntangi-
bles. As We have seen, Maryland taxes
only cMtRil ss9eiks and bonds: = dee
deposits. Pennsylvania ON the other
hand gets half it's revenue from mort
cages and 20 per cent from trust es-
tates, whose fntanEibles cannot be con-
cealed. Minnesota makes important ex-
emptions from Its list Of taxable in
(see n. Y. State Committee Report
C1916). Pa. p. 1875 Md p. 1sS; Minn.,
p. 1907
2. In selecting the intansibIes to be
taxed In the District and thOse to be
exempted the lessons taught by the
experience Of these other states should
be learned and needed.
(See N. Y. State Committee Report
(1918), pages 100 to 1S4.)
Self-assessment under a listlng sys-
tenn (Eke that proposed by our in
tangibles law) has failed everywhere.
Even when only n low tax rate II ap-
piled to fntangfbles the successful Op-
eratfOns of the tax have been limited
largely to collections from the source.
from intanxibles In the hands of the
court. and not to be concealed Hike
those belonging to trust estates, and
like mortgages, with a rigorous pro-
vision Of law for ascertaining their
ownership.
II taxable intangibIes I'm the District
were by amendment confined rigidly to
the particular stocks and bonds from
which Maryland derives all it's intnngi-
BILE tax revenue, nnd to mortgages from
which PennsyIvania derives half it's In
tangible tax revenue, the District would
be taxed more drasticaily than either
Maryland or Pennsylvania with n re-
suIting maximum of revenue and a
minimum of perjury promotion and
gross and obvious injustice.
Taxed intangibies In the District
should In equity be Mt least thus re-
stficted.
3. The rate of taxation should be
lower, not more than three mills. II
credits are to be taxed without deduc-
taxed on what is owing to him and In
not to be relieved Of taxation ON what
he owes. This is undeniably double
taxation, and the rate Of such taxation
should be nominal.
In the discussion before the New York
city tax committee (1016) the opinion
was expressed that a three or even two
mills rate would be sufficient II there
81, "a, IS and I'D
The safe limit IL three mills, n rate
equivalent to a per cent income tax
ON n security paying per cent inter
est. (See New York State Report (1916),
pages l69, 100. 2O6.)
A O per cent income tax is the maxi
mum rate imposed in Wisconsin and
Massa husetts, which substitute tax
rate tax ON the value of the fntangibles.
~MinnesOta's rate IN only three mills.
Maryland's rate is three mills for local
purposes and one and n half for state
purposes. The District has no state
rights privileges, benefits or expenses.
II does not need and should not Justly
bear the Maryland state levy.
II Maryland's rate fs impOsed upon
the District this rate should be applied
In the District only to the intangibIes
which Maryland taxes. namely. certain
stocks and bonds. Omftting mortgages
and ordinary bank deposits.
n PennsyIvania's rate OF four mills Is
imnosed i'm the District 1t should be ap-
piled with all Of Pennsylvania ex-
emnftons and lenient enforcement
against individuals. SO that One-hah of
fhe revenue from this tax shall be col
Iecfed from mortgages ON real estate,
90 Der cent ON personal property held
In trust by trust companies and only
m ner cent from Individuals assesaed
nv n sworn return or arbitrary esti-
mate. New York state Report (19l6),
mage 173.)