The Brattleboro daily reformer. (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1913-1955, 1922-03-17
NO EXCHANGING OF
TAX FORMATIOt
Internal Revenue Officers
Seek Full Amount of In
come, Not Its Source
PROHIBITION MEN d
COULD SEE RETURN
Question Whether Information Could BE
Used Against Maker of Return
Might BE discriminating Evidence and
Constitution Would Protect Him.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

BY DAVID LAWRENCE.
Especial Despatch to The Reformer.)
Copyright 1922.
WASHINGTON. March 17.-Boot-
eggerS. handbook makers, or any other
class of individuals of the underworld
paying lot ON incomes derived by
likely 10 have their ofenses called to the
attention of other branches of the gov
eminent or state authorities.
THE primary function of the income
tax division is to collect revenue, said
Carl AIapes. solicitor of Internal reve-
nue., today.=-'.amd to see to il that proper
returns are made for all income re-
ceived. We are far too busy to do any
thing else but, of csurSe. if any other
department of the government calls
upon us TO see the income tax return of
any individual or business, we are bound
by law to permit inspection
There's another obstacle, however, in
the way of prosecution. Would an I'M
come tax return, made out and sworn
TO by an individual constitute evidence?
Doesn't the federal constitution give
man the right not To incriminatc HIM
9rlf? These points have been threShed
over by government lawyers with the re
suIt that they are considerably in doubt
what could be done with an income tax
return which disclosed that an indivld-
nal had been engaged in unlawful pur-
suits.
It's true that the prohibition enforce
ment agency of the government. which
| is part of the treasury department.
could ask for any returns il wishes and
| il it suspected that an individual was
engaged in violating the prohibition
| laws. careful watch could be kept for
evidence of further transactions. But it
| is a matter Of much doubt whether the
| income tax return showing a lump of
past transactions would be of any value
without further evidence furnished by
persons who had knowledge. for I'M
stance. of the sale of liquor illegally dr
any other violations of existing law.
Don't Ask How.
| Inasmuch As the income tax division
is anxious 10 get aS much revenue as
IpoSsible and does not feel its duty is
money. no matter how legitimate his
| business. the whole subject of detecting
| fraud is one which officials here are not
| particularly anxious 10 take But the
| impression one gains is that despite
Icarlier reports to the contrary, the IN
| come tax returns are not as much a
source of information as IT was thought
| they would be. There is reason To be-
| lieye, that mapNe boot leegers, for. exanl-
pie. are 81 sure 81 their ground that
| they are making out their returns with
out fear Of difficulty. just how they
describe their business IS difficult to
know though it is supposed the words
commissions" broker and kindred
terms now contained on the income tax
forms are broad enough TO cover most of
| the activities of the bOotlegger and hand
book maker.
1t will be asked why n man who
imakes his money through illicit means
! Lh a
taxes. but there is check upon failure
| to pay income taxes The government
has the right to compel banks to pro
| duce records of its depoSitors. Similarly
| the government can ascertain whether
| an individual had any money or not by
examination of the books of concerns
| which may have sold goods to him. Even
| cash transactions. it is -coutendcd. can
be traced.
Paid Without a Whimper.
One Of the most interesting cases OF