Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-28
TREASURYD|SL|KES
COUzENS' PROPOSAL
Giving Controller Right to Re-
+: view Internal Revenue De-
cisions Opposed.
BY DAVID LAWRENCE.

About the most uncomfortable and
perplexing piece Of legislation that mas
been proposed this session, from the
viewpoint of the Treasury Department,
IS that which the Senate adopted two
DAYS ago in requiring the acts OF the
commissioner of internal revenue to
be reviewed by Controller General
McCarl in so far as they relate to tax
refunds.
Mr. Couzens does not feel that the
Bureau OF Internal Revenue should
continue to have the broad discre-
tionary powers 1t has enjoyed in set.
fling with a taxpayer on the matter of
refunds.
II have never known an industry
he said today. which does not vel
come an outside audit, in fact insists
On a cheek for it's own good. That's
what The controller general would do.
alton of Provision.
= 7 an Senator was asked to
nx york .ngs of his amend
y eQuire the controller
&c. prevail" he was asked, IF
q {. aAa ordered the refund?'
has ATTY then would be merely to
see that The refund was made in &C
cordance with the court decision" said
Mr.. Couzens.
What relief would the taxpayer
have" was the next question, If the
controller refused to approve the COM
missioner's decision?"
THE taxpayers could then appeal
10 the Board of Tax Appeals, and If
that board ordered the refund the con-
troller would have to pay IT."
Mr.. Couzens insisted also that what
ne was proposing was simply that
there be a check on expenditures in
dependent OF the executive branch OF
the government, just as the controller
general now reviews all other Govern
fnent expenditures on behalf of Con-
gress.
Process Called Cumbersome.
The viewpoint of the Treasury is
that this is cumbersome process and
reflects on the integrity OF the men
In the Internal Revenue Bureau. The
amendment proposed would apply
only to refunds above $4,000, so it is
argued that she Senate would trust
the auditors with small sums, but not
with large amounts.
The contention is also advanced by
Treasury officials that it would be
expensive to conduct q second check.
that an administrative machinery
would have to be set up almost as
expensive as the Internal Revenue
Bureau itself in order to audit the
returns. Senator Couzens, however,
rays the controller would have the
right to use the same auditors in the
bureau who audited the original &C
counts, but that the purpose of his
amendment is to prevent the arbitrary
action OF a single Income Tax Bureau
of1cial higher up.
The House of Representatives has
yet to aceept the Couzens amendment.
and naturally the administration will
do all in its power to prevent the
item from being retained when the
urgent deficiency bill goes to con-
ference.
Some Rulings Disliked.
Executive officials have not been
altogether satisfied with Controller
General McCarl's rulings on expense
accounts and a. number of items
necessary in their opinion to carry on
the Government, so they do not relish
b microscopic examination of all
Income tax returns in which large
refunds are made.
/ The objection chiefly is that the
controller general would have the
power to review decisions of the
internal revenue, interpreting the law
as he sees it and refusing to approve
expenditures not in accordance with
his views. Another argument ad-
.vanced is that whereas Mr.. McCarl
was empowered by Congress to review
expenditures Of funds authorized by
Congress, the refunds are really a
return of money improperly collected
IN the first place. There are some
constitutional questions involved in
whether the Executive or the Con-
Eress has the supreme administrative
power in collecting. taxes after the
rates are once fixed by Congress. The
act Of refund is considered by execu-
tive officials as a part of the process
of collection.
tcopyriEht. 1927