Evening journal., 1922-01-17
filing TAX IS
DUE FOR TEST
Court Grants Rule in Ryan
Case Returnable on
January %
CONTENDS FEE
is NOT LEGAL


On petition of Charles n. Ryan.
Of Harrington and Ryan, Chief JUS
tice Pennewill. in Superior Court
yesterday afternoon. issued a rule
returnable January 26 directing the
state School Tax Commissioners to
show cause why peremptory writ
OF mandamus should not be issued
commanding them to receive and
file the petitioners income tax re-
turn without its being accompanied
by the SO fling fee.
The action was brought by Mr.
Ryan to test the constitutionality OF
the provision OF the state income
tax law requiring that each return
be accompanied by a fling fee OF SO.
George N. Davis and Charles e..
Keedy are attornews for Ryan.
When the rule was asked for in
court yesterday afternoon, Mr.
Keedy explained that the suit
is brought by Mr. Ryan at this time
TO get the court, II possible. to pass
upon the constitutionality OF the
statute so that every one taxable in
the State may know whether or not
the statute is constitutional prior TO
March Is. Mr. Ryan's insti
tuition OF legal proceedings, he
said. were taken entirely in the in
terest of the general public to clear
up the matter.
The proceedings are OF interest tc
approximately 100000 people in the
State, who, under the provisions OF
the State School Tax law, arc
obliged to pay the 81 filing fee on or
before March IS, under penalty oi
fine or imprisonment. or both
Mr.. Ryan, whose home is at $500
West Eighteenth street, sets out in
mis- petition that on January 10.
1922. he presented to the State
School Income Tax Department his
income tax return. and offered the
full amount of the tax payable. as
shown on tke face OF the return.
His petition further sets forth that
at the time OF presenting and offer
ing said return and rendering pay
ment he refused to pay a filing fec
OF SO, "vhereupon said defendants
refused and declined to receive and
file" his return, because OF his fail
ure to include the filing fee OF 81
as prescribed in Article 3, section
10. OF the law.
In his petition, Mr.. Ryan contend
that his failure to include the film
fee OF SO. in making the payment o
his tax, is not sufficient in law Z
warrant the State School Income Ia
| Department in refusing to receiv
and file his income tax return, 10
the reason that the so-called Min
fee Of SO is not in fact a fling fe'
but is and was intended to be, a cap
tation or other tax upon your pet
! toner. and was and is illegal an
contrary to the provisions OF IN
Constitution OF the State OF Dela
ware"
In his afidavit, Mr.. Ryan contend
that the So hling fee is not such
fee as may be exacted lawfully b.
the state OF Delaware through tn
agency OF the said Tax Department
/ for the expenses incurred or about T.
be incurred. or contemplated to b.
incurred in receiving and filing sucl
income tax return, and the simila
return OF other taxables under tn
provisions OF this Act.
The AFFIDAVIT points out that Their
are more than 100000 adults, resi-
dents OF the State, classified as tax
ables under said act, each obligat
ed under Section 10 OF the law t.
pay the sum OF SO, thus providinl
for the raising OF at least the sun
OF 100000, payable on or befor
March 10. 1922. and like sums eacl
year thereafter.
He further avers that the sal
sum OF at least 5000 to be rails
ed annually is far in excess OF an
sum OF money contemplated to be
intended to be, or expected TO be. ez
pended in any lawful manner by tn
State OF Delaware, through IN
agency OF the Tax Department,
receiving and filing the income Ia
returns OF the taxables OF the Stat
OF Delaware under the provision
OF the said act, and further, that 4
his opinion the $500. 900 was intend
ed by the legislative authority q
the State OF Delaware to be a ia
upon individual adult citizens an
residents OF the State proportional
TO the head" or person. OF all sue
taxables in the State. OF revenu