Evening star., 1925-05-26
kate by Mail-Payabie in Advance
MARYLAND and Virginia.
All Other States.
Member of the Associated Press.
Income Tax Publicity Lawful.

In clear-cut, unanimous decision
the Supreme Court has held that it is
the intent of Congress that newspapers
should be permitted to publish the
names of income taxpayers and the
amounts of their payments. The court
leaves no question whatever on this
score. 1t holds that successive enact
ments denote policy of progress
siveIy liberal publicity" and that Con-
gress meant Ito abandon the policy of
secrecy altogether
The conflict in this case lay between
TWO sections of the law, one of which,
maintained in successive enactments.
prohibited publicity Of income tax re-
turns. That, the court holds, was a
o. basic provision, liberalized by subse-
quent acts. That prohibition was not
absolute, but was made subject to pos
sible qualification in that it declared it
to be unlawful to print or publish in
any manner mot provided by law" any
income return or any part thereof. A
subsequent enactment authorized the
make available for public inspection
lists of names of taxpayers and
amounts Of taxes paid by them. The
court rejects the Governments con-
tention that this authorized merely
inspection" Of the lists and not pub
lication.
There is no logical distinction be-
tween inspection" and publication. ="
What the individual citizen may do
the press may do. Inspection by one
person is legal. Inspection and pub
licatior in behalf Of individuals is the
right of the newspaper. No other rul.
ing was logically possible.
In this decision the court. does not
touch upon the freedom of the press
1t does not find it necessary to do So
for the statutes, it holds, do not deny
such freedom. Absolute prohibition of
publicity is the right of Congress as
the lawmaking body. Were such abso-
lutte prohibition maintained without
discrimination between individuals and
press no infraction of the first amend
ment would be committed. Inasmuch
as there is no difference in the statu-
tory prohibition the question of free
dom" does not arise. The court, as is
usual in its rulings, does not meet a
moot point.
Though the court does not go into
the matter, inasmuch as it was not in
issue, there is involved in this case
the question of the distinction between
publication Of returns" and of names
and amounts paid. The prohibition
against the publicity of returns stands
as against private inspection and news
paper publication. The returns are the
computations of the taxpayers submit
ted to the Government for its informa-
ton and guidance. They must be held
In confidence. 1t is not conceivable
that Congress has ever contemplated
or will ever act to permit either inspec-
ton or publication of the returns
They are not final. They are advisory
They cannot be open to public exam
ination-which would be tantamount
to newspaper publication-without
causing grave injury and in the final
effect defeating the purpose of the
income tax law, which is to provide
the Government with revenues.
This decision has been so promptly
rendered as to clear away all doubts
In good season. 1t gives Congress a
definition which may be Of value in the
framing of aDV new lppiSIati on tho
subject. 1t may precipitate broad dis
cussion at the next session of the
whole matter of public inspection
and publicity, the wisdom Of which re-
mains in some question. Congress
alone can meet that issue. The court
has defined its enactments clearly, and
the freedom of the press" remains un.
impaired.