Evening star., 1928-05-24
MELLON ATTACKS
INCOME PUBLICITY
Provision in Tax Bill Now Be-
fore Conferees Futile, Sec
retary Holds.

Sharply attacking the publicity pro-
vision inserted by the Senate in the
revenue bill now before conferees. Sec
retary Of the Treasury Mellon today
declared the provision to be entirely
futile for any purpose"
In addition to doing no good. the Sec
retary believes it is definitely harmful
in many ways. He Is hoping the "ob-
jectionable" feature of the bill may be
eliminated by the conferees, but ex-
planned he has no assurances as to what
the conferees will do.
The principal objection to publicity
Of income tax figures. the Secretary EN-
phasised, was that the Government had
no right to disclose the private business
Of the individual.
mo civilized country know Of" said
the Secretary, publishes the private at
fairs OF It's people. There is nothing Of
the sort In England or any OF the lead
Ing countries Of the world"
The publicity provision Is entirely
futile for any purpose" Mr.. Mellon de-
clared, because the return as published
does not give any accurate idea Of the
actual income back OF the return. Many
factors enter into the making OF q re-
turn. such as deductions or matters
which belong in the year before"
Former Provision Repealed.
A provision requiring publicity for
income tax figures was inserted in the
1924 revenue law, but Secretary Mellon
emphasized It was repealed in the 1926
law and has since been imperative.
Although 1t was not In effect long
enough TO make any material change
in the amount Of revenue to the Gov
ernment one way or another, Secre-
tary Mellon thought the publicity
given returns did not serve the pur-
pose Of increasing returns.
The returns as formerly made pub
lie or as proposed to be made public
under the present bill. Secretary Mellon
said, would not give clue TO the cur
rent income of the taxpayer, as one
might suppose, but on the contrary
would very likely be entirely nislead-
ing"
Assistant Secretary Of the Treasury
Bond. in charge OF the Internal Reve-
nue. Bureau, branded the publicity pro-
vision as impractical"
Two main objections were voiced by
Mr.. Bond. First, he said 1t would en-
barrass the bureau in Its normal work:
It would interrupt It's functioning mere
ly 10 satisfy idle curiosity" Second.
Mr.. Bond thought, was the even mere
serious objection To publishing the
private business affairs OF the indiy.-
dual. Such publication, he thought.
would probably assist mans creditors
In further embarrassing him, and might
prove TO be hindrance 70 business.
Bill Generally Acceptable.
Outside OF the publicity feature OF
the revenue bill. Secretary Mellon
thought II was mot O radical bill"
generally speaking.
When publicity first was given to
income tax returns following enactment
of the 1924 law. q storm OF opposition
arose from the entire country, with the
result that the next revenue act re-
pealed what had been caustically
dubbed the Paul Pry" section. The
Government was castigated by cartoon
comedy and stage for sticking III
nose" into everybodys business. ano
Congress was quick to respond by
| striking from the law the objection
able provision.
| pressed the opinion that the provision
| In the bill as 1t stands today wonlo
not only force making public OF tne
actual amounts paid, but also OF the
| files of the income tax returns MADE
| by the individual or corporation to the
| Government.
The Supreme Court of the United
| States held that newspapers had the
| right 10 publish the names OF TAX
payers and the amounts OF taxes paid
by them, under the 1924 provision
| regardless OF another apparently con-
Trajectory provision OF the Revised
Statutes which would have made
such publication violation OF the law
Language Of the new publicity pro.
vision, however, Is somewhat different
| from that IN the 1924 act.