Arizona republican., 1920-03-02
UPHOLDS RICH I IF STATES T0
 TAX INCOMES IF NUN RESIDENTS
Gan Levy On Incomes De-
 rive d From Property
 Within State, Supreme Court Rules In Decisions
[Republican A. P. Leased wireI

WASHINGTON, March 1.-Right oi the states to impose income taxes on non- residents provided they are in har- mony with those imposed on residents, was upheld and defined today by the supreme court in two decisions.
 In case from Oklahoma, the court held a state had authority to levy in- come taxes against non-residents on incomes derived from property within the state.
 In a New York case, however, the court declared such taxes against non residents must not be discriminatory.
 Protect Non Residents
 The Oklahoma income tax law was sustained and the New York law was declared null and void insofar as It denies nonresident exemptions which are given New York citizens. Both opinions were given by Justice Pit ney, with Justice McReynolds dissent ing in the New York case. In both suits were involved the exemptions, similar to the federal income tax law. provided for married and singe per- sons
 Distinction between the Oklahoma and New York laws, it appears, was that the Oklahoma law gives non-res- idents and citizens the same exemp- tions while the New York law denies residents exemptions granted its citizens.
 In the Oklahoma proceedings, c. B. Shaffer of Chicago. sued the state aud itor to enjoin collection of income taxes levied on income derived from Oklahoma oil wells. In the other case, Comptroller Travis of New York was enjoined by the Yale and Towne Manu- featuring company, having plant in Connecticut, from coIfectiRe income taxes from it's employees without giving them exemptions given New York cit
 
 In sustaining the Oklahoma law, the court said:
 'In our system of government the states have general dominion. and, save as restricted by the federal constitution complete dominion over all persons, property and business transactions within their borders. Certainly they are not restricted to property taxation nor to any parti- cular form of excises.
 Say States Rights Undisputed
 That the state, from whose laws property and business and industry derive protection and security without which production and occupation would be impossible is debarred from exacting a share of those gains in the form of income taxes for the support of the government is a proposition so wholly inconsistent with Fundamental principles as to be .refuted by mere statement.
 "And we deem it clear upon prin- ciple as weA as authority, that just as a state may impose general income, taxes upon it's citizens and residents whose persons are subject to it's con trol, 1t may as a necessary conse- quence, levy a duty of Ike character upon incomes accruing to non-resi- dents from their property or business within the state. or their occupations carried on therein; enforcing payment by an exercise of a just control over persons and property within it's bor- ders."
 Reciting that goods of Connecticut and New Jersey citizens work in New York in competition with New York CTS and yet the non-residents were called upon under the New York law to pay taxes and exemptions from which New York residents are free. Justice Pitney declared the law to be manifestly unfair.
 The suggestion from New York counsel that the adjacent states might levy counter dfscriminations against New York citizens was dismissed by the court with the declaration that "discriminations can not be cured by retaliation"
 An injunction was granted by the court against the New York comp trIper enjoining enforcement of the New York law as against those denied New York exemptions.