Evening star., 1922-02-15

ARTICLE xxx.
In the two preceding articles l dis
cussed the question of gifts. if ac-
quired prior to January l, 1921, espe-
cially in relation to the subsequent
sale of them by the donee.
The revenue act of 1921 distin-
guishes between property acquired by
gift and property acquired by bequest.
devise. or inheritance. Property ac-
quired by bequest. devise, or inherit
ence is treated by the person receiv-
ing it exactly as is a gift acquired
prior to January l, 1921. In other
words. the preceding revenue acts are
not changed with reference to be-
quests, devises or inheritances at all
and only with respect to such gifts as
were or are acquired subsequent to
December 81, 1920.
A number of attorneys question the
constitutionality Of section 2O2 (a) (2),
summarized in the article of yester-
day. These attorneys are not depend
ing on the decision of the appellate
division of the supreme court of New
York in the cases of People ex rel.
NJ. Orme Wilson VS.. Wendell and
People ex rel. Robert S. Brewster VS..
Wendell, to which l referred in my
that section 213 (b) (3) specifically
excludes from among the items that
constitute gross income "the value of
property acquired by gift, bequest,
devise, or descent.
These attorneys argue that section
202 (a) (2) and section 213 (b) (3).
in SO far as they relate to gifts. are
SO inconsistent as to nullify each
other and that under the rules of
statutory construction and the long
line of decisions which interpret am
biguous or inconsistent features OF
tax law in a way most favorable to
taxpayers, when issue is@pressted to
the United States Supreme Court the
said court will probably hold section
202 (a) (2) as unconstitutional and
therefore imperative.
OF course. I cannot and do not make
any attempt to pass Judgment upon
the legality of the revenue act of
1921. This is matter which must be
left to lawyers and judges. Tax
payers, however, should bear the dis
cussion in mind and if they are af-
fected by section 202 ta) (2), they are
advised to consult with their attor-
neys.
Questions md Answers.
Q. (S6) Some time during the lat
Ter OIL 1SSU L uuueTlOOh the re-
pairing, or rather, l should say, i'm
proving of our house, which belongs
to my mother. This necessitated an
expenditure of approximately $500.
The amount mentioned was an out
right gift, as will in no way be
recompensed for this outlay. The
greater part of this was paid during
1921, and no deduction from my 1920
income tax return was attempted for
the amount paid out during the year
1920. Will it be permissible to de-
duct any or all of this from my in
of course. that nothing like this is
mentioned under article % of form
1040-A, but thought It just possible
that some allowance might be made.
(b) During 1921 my father worked
about two and one-half or at the
per cent of his salary during that
time to the support of the family.
There are two minor children. These
two children were supported entire
ly by sister and myself during the
past year, with the exception, of
my father was working. l wish to
mention, incidentally, that l con-
tributed greater part to the sup
port of the family, this mention
being made merely because my sis
ter did not have employment a suf-
ficient length of time to make her
income large enough to necessitate
a return. In view of the above will
1 be allowed to claim exemption for
the support of either one or both Of
the minor children?
A. (a) Unfortunately. no.
(b) 1 think that, under the circum-
stances, it is fair for you to claim
deductions for both minors. In fact,
many in your situation would claim
to be the head of the family and de-
duct s2,S00. or, if your net income is
not over $4,000. $4,000.
Q. $50 Will you please inform me
if a retailer whose sales exceed $1,000
is required to file a return under