Evening star., 1924-12-04
The Tax Publicity Decision.

In the nrSl Juulclal decision rem.
dered in the income tax publicity
case Judge Reeves of the Federal
court at Kansas City holds, first OF
all, that there has been no violation
Of law in the publication of the names
and amounts paid in taxes. for the
reason that the prohibition against
relates to the return and not to the
sum Of the tax, which, in the judg-
ment of the court, is not a part of
the return. The return" of the tax.
statement of his income, profits,
losses and expenditures and the
sources of. income, together with
claims for allowances. He computes
for his own convenience and guid-
ance a figure of tax according to his
understanding Of the law and of the
equities of his statement. That COM
putation, however, is not a part of the
return. in the opinion, OF Judge
Reeves. 1t may be rejected by the
Treasury, which. in any case, makes
it's own computation OF the amount
payable in tax. That computation is
final.
The act of Congress of last May
directs the preparation and opening
to public inspection Of lists contain
ing the names and post Office addresses
Of the persons making income tax re-
turns, together with the amount of
tax paid. This preserves the distinc-
tion between the amount of the tax
and the return, the former being
open to inspection and the latter be-
ing held in confidence. with a penalty
for its publication in any manner.
Thus the court rules. and soundly,
that publication OF the amount of the
tax is not violation Of the prohibition
against the publication in whole or in
part Of the return. If. however. says
Judge Reeves, the amount of the tax
is to be regarded as a part of the re
turn and is to be opened for public
inspection. denial Of the right of pub
lication of the tax assessments by the
newspapers is a violation Of the first
amendment to the Constitution, which
forbids the curtailment of the free
dom of speech and of the press.
In short, rules the court, if the
amount of the tax as published by the
newspapers is not a part Of the re-
turn, there is no violation of the
statute, whereas if the amount Of the
tax is to be construed as part of the
return and is open to public inspec-
ton. prohibition of it's publication is
violation Of the Constitution.
That permission for public inspec-
ton of the tax payments is tanta-
mount to permission of publication is
obvious, for any other construction
of the law reduces it to absolute abb
surdity. Under such a construc-
ton any individual citizen might in
spect the records for his own personal
satisfaction, but would be prohibited
from telling any one by word of mouth
or by letter any name or amount
which he has noted on the list He
might make memorandum Of names
and amounts and yet could not show
that memorandum to any one, for
such action would constitute pubiica-
ton. Or if oral publication could be
made with impunity he might broad
cast by radio, whereas broadcasting
by print would be punishable.
1t was clearly the purpose Of Con-
gress to permit not only the public
inspection Of the tax lists, but the
publication of such lists for public in
formation. Newspaper publication is
the only practical method Of public in.
spection of the records. If the individ.
ual can inspect the lists and the press
cannot print the information which he
| thereby derives, freedom of the press
| is denied and the Constitution is vic.
lated.
Such is the clear reasoning and the
! unacceptable deduction of the court al
Kansas City. The United States, max
| ing q test, will carry the case to the
Supreme Court for final decision
| Meanwhile, at the instance of the
President, move will be made to re
peal the publicity clause of the statute
|