The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1919-03-19
why mot PRUIESI YUUR 1NCUME IRk'
Information Concerning Present Law Bearing on Your fo
sible Rights
Bv WALDO G.. MORSE
7 ran1
LAWYER and Publicist

, or. or .,o,ycr In levy duties. imn"S'S
md .x,iers'. nruTldcd that they must
hc made "l'nform throughout Inc
! tnilCd States
The law Of 1913 was sustained by IN"
suprnmr court which had before " '''
case nj AN income tax levied upon
, cnrnnra,inn in, respect of its income w
rived from property. the law haE.'h
! been passed during tn" tax year. l"'
! present law passed in 1919 thN'S' ~
"incunc Of 1919. that which was 'arH'u
! in 1918.
As To income from property We ar"
disposed /" raise no. question: tH
property survives and its value IN l'''
may he roughly presumed from NS
como in 1910. Such WAS IN" ola rus
| lish practice and our constitution '''
! been amended since 1894 so 'hH' nv
taxes upon income need be aprort'"''"
! among the states according 10 r"pu-
latiuns.
, The court would he apt 10 say 'na'
1.-THE tax is good as TAX on property H.
come in 1912. though measured ny '"'
income Of the same property IN '''''
.hr6adIy speaking that the property or
Its equivalent must survive in the hahuS
! Of someone. We do not agree with Inc
!
such decision because Of III" Judi'lhl
history nf the court. "a MS the r"n-
ilngrnrIrS Of tho loss. theft bankruptcy,
idnath and distribution Of property ami
,perhaps other considerations would re-
.uuire a different conclusion in logic.
: Letting historic incXactItudcS Pr"Nhl'
, then as To income from property. W"
i may consider income from effort. bear
; ing in mind tn" distinct constitutional
! Limitation as In taxation. that all lanes
which arc not appor,nned among 'hr
states must be such as ar" described IN
/ the words duties mpostS and excuses
| Is an ''inrume tax imposed by Ia"
! rnactcd in 1919 upon wages which a
man had received in 1918 a duty. I'M
post or excise" Must NOT all such col
Elections. so described. he essentially and
Unnecessarily lcvirS upon current income
in tho cuurs" OF tho transaction Of husi-
mess or enjoyment Of arocation. TO be
fixed Of before tho expiration OF the
year in respect whereof they ar" 10 he
assessed" In 4 recent cas-" the supreme
court in referring To the sustaining Of
taxes rs "'rxriscs." spoke Of that word
as referring TO business privileges mr.
cmploymnnls clearly current matter.
not accommodations from tho past.
Arc no, wages for 1918 either capital
lor nnthinG in 1913" Unless otherwise
specified. the word inc me- means AN
!nual incomc."
\ TAX imposed on tho income OF 1915
10y Il law enacted in 1915 might have
he"n mad" payable in 1919. rs that
would hnv" hccn n mere extension ~
credit in IN" tim" Of payment. Any
DAFT If enactment during or prior &c
tho year Of 1918 would have been suffi.
,cicnt. but as TO the validity of the law
passed in 1919. We entertain grave
doubts. If tho congress of 1919 may
tan income for 1915. there is no line o,
point Of Imitation and lincoln" taxes
may be- levied up all receipts for l9l I
1916. l9l" and So on into the past. back
tn 1919. and then later may be levied
over again.
The present law is apt to result II
leases Of great hardship revolving 10 thu
moral sense. always tanding 10 affcc
rulings of courts.
For legislative delays and incffi
cirncics. individuals ought not to suffer
though too often such is their fate. 4:
to tho ncutencss Of tn" judicial rar ir
percciving tho call OF distress. WE mus
await the Iraching of time. In regard
Ito the halanCings OF tho judicial mind
il is safe Ia assert that the question
now presented would have hcen de
/, tcrmincd differently b. tn" supreme
court as constituted al different period!
luC it's existence.
Under state Of facts and r condition
Of tho law SO existing it may no wist
TO pay income taxes under protest.
CuDyright 1879