Evening star., 1926-02-07
BY JAMES COTZENS,
Senator From Michigan.

At this time one of the outstanding
subjects of legislation, at least as eV1-
denced by the great newspapers OF the
country, Is tax reduction. Statements
are made that there Is universal pub
lie demand for such reduction, all of
which, of course, iS not true, because
only a few million out of one hundred
and ten million people are really inter
ested in the reduction of income tax.
Even to those who are expecting d.
rect benefit from the proposed reduc-
ton in Federal income tax it is OF
greater interest that we have a uni
form method OF collecting the taxes
under the present statute than re
duction in rates.
This brings me to state some or the
observations I have made as result
of being chairman OF the select COM
mittee Of the Senate that for some
time back has been investigating the
Bureau Of Internal Revenue. The
records show that only 1512 per cent
Of the rulings and decisions of the
bureau have ever been published.
This leaves S41a per cent of the rulings
and regulations that the public has
never been informed about. Thls
means that a decision may be reached
in one case which establishes a princi-
pie and results in great financial bene-
ment to the detriment Of the taxpayer.
In another case presenting the same
identical facts q different decision Is
rendered, resulting in the very reverse
Of the results that We're obtained In
the prior decision. For example, the
United States Steel Corporation had
its amortization Of war plant facil-
| tiles decided on a basis more favor
able to it than was decided in the case
LII ton
| The details of these cases are too
| lengthy to incorporate in this article,
but they are available to any one who
wants to verify this statement. I
could go on and recite dozens OF such
instances.
Decisions Not Precedent.
There are decisions rendered by the
solicitor and heads Of departments
which specifically state that this de-
cision must not be used by the engi-
neers and auditors as a precedent In
other cases. In other words, this
| means that this case is specially given
| q favorable decision, but the same
| favorable decision must not be applied
| in any other case.
The testimony discloses that an oil
we'll or a mine may be valued for one
stockholder for the purpose of collect
ing 1IlCOUle IdA On MS profit WQol Ilo
sells out, and given an entirely differ
ent value to another stockholder. In
some cases we have found existing in
| the bureau four and five valuations
on the same piece of property. This
means that there Is no index or sys-
tenn that will prevent different valu-
ations being placed by different engi-
neers on the same Identical property.
Volumes might be written about this,
but desire to point out that it is the
| lack of system, the lack Of organiZa-
| ton, the lack of rules and regulations
for the staff itself, and the lack of
publication Of rulings arrived at, that
| has caused the almost indescribable
mess that now exists in the bureau,
and has resulted in the unjust appli.
cation Of the statute to some and more
favorable application to others.
| Perhaps the taxpayers, their at.
torneys and auditors may best under,
stand what ] am endea:voring to point
| out by relating 4 conversation be-
tween a prominent attorney and my,
ae6 In my of8ce kha other day. IN which