Weekly journal-miner., 1919-05-28
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
(From Thursdays Daily) Editor, Journal Miner, Hear Sir.

EultO1, JOuIildl MlutT,
 Dear Sir:
 Having carefully read your editorial in your issue of today, 1 have to say that your position on the Federal In- come Tax law Is well taken, in rela- tion' to it's application to the moneys received by the owner of mines, or other real estate, from their sale to others, where the purchase moneys received amount to more. than the estimated, orknowr cost Of the prop erty. The moneys received over ana above the cost were never intendd by the lawmaker to he held as income under the law, for as fact, physical and otherwise, it is not. ard cannot be income The law has in cJn- temptation only the gains and profits derived from the prosecution and Op- eration of a business, the profits and gains of which are derived from the acquisition and disposition O. the sub. jects. dealt with for gains and profits alone by individuals, whose opera tions, and use of the subjects, pro duce the gains an1 profits. Not so with inanimate real estate, which chances to appreciate ill value from no action Or intent of the owner in using, and working upon 1T, for the means of self support. and hence the inevitable conclusion follows, that such appreciation of real estate is simply a part of 1t, and the capital invested in is not, independent of it; is inseparable from it. and being SO. cannot be income, as income must. of necessity, be independent of the capital producing 1t. There is no es- cape from the conclusion The ques- ton involved has been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Gray vs. Darlington, reported in IS Wallace U. s. Reports. page 6, in which the court said:
 The mere fact that tne property has advanced in value between the date of its acquisition and sale. does not authorize the imposition of the tax on the amount of the advance. Mere advance in value in no sense constitutes the gains, profits or in come specified by the statute. It constitutes and can be treated merely as increased capital" To the same effect IS the decision in the federal case of Baldwin Locomotive Works vs. McCOach, 2l5 Federal Reports o67, as we'll as numerous other de cisions of the state courts. The con structioR of tine secretary of the treasury, which is being enforced by the U. $. revenue collectors, is a se- rious obstacle to the successful op- eration of the mines of this state, and should bc revoked and recalled
 The mining interests and business organizations of this state should at once take the matter in hand and with the cooperation of Tour members of congress, secure, ii possible, a revocation of the action of the secre- tary of the treasury, and I suggest that our Chamber of Commerce at once take the lead The courts of last resort of England have in well considered cases held with the Su- preme Court of the United States that profits arising from a sale of land are not income.
 The leading case is that Of Febran Rubber Syndicate vs Farmer , Tax Cases 65S. The judgment of the court being delivered by Lord Sal verseH. who said "The profit in such case (purchase and sale of real estate) is not part of the persons annual income liable to be assessed for income tax. but results from an appreciation of his capital" =. .....
 May 2l, 1910
 DANL. E PARKS.