Evening star., 1928-06-02

The unsuccessful attempt to revive
publicity of Federal income tax returns
drew prompt and emphatic protest from
the press generally. Temporarily ac-
cepted by the Senate, the publicity
clause of the new tax bill was killed
before the measure went to the Presi-
dent for his signature.
1.-The Senate" says the Bingnamton
Press. wisely eliminated from the reve-
nue. bill the section calling for the pub
Iicity Of income tax statiStics--the tax
snoouing proyision--by a vote of 81 to
% The demand for the elm
ination OF the tax shopping feature OF
the measure was instantaneous and
unanimous from all parts OF the
country"
The publicity plan. according to the
Roanoke World-News, has been tried
without great success. For some years,
continues that paper. the Internal
Revenue Department ruled that the
public had access TO the actual amount
of tax an individual paid. but not TO the
statement Of his business affairs on
which that tax was based. There was
an immediate rush 10 find out what
competitors In business were returning.
General public curiosity centered on
the vast fortunes OF Mr.. Ford and MI.
Rockefeller and Mr.. Mellon, but many
a man went to the tax office TO find out
how much money those engaged IN the
same line of business as himself were
making. and. IL possible. to find out how
they made 1t. Publication OF the tax
paid without giving the taxable income
led TO many misconceptions"
"In the form OF limited publication
OF total tax payments. as applied IN
1924" the Grand Rapids Press recalls.
they were useful, as one Senator put
it, for ladies contemplating divorce or
contemplating an application Tor an
mony,' and for persons who wished 10
sell sucker lists to mail advertisers.
They did the country no good whatever
so far as collecting more taxes was con-
cerned."
The Arkansas Democrat refers to the
1924 provision as having remained In
effect only q comparatively short time,
and remarks: Protests from taxpayers
resulted in its repeal. and rightly so.
for the simple reason that 1t served no
good and did no harnt Its insertion in
the law apparently was motivated by q
demagogic appeal to the curious and
to those who sought the secrets OF sue
cess Of men who earned sufficient TO be
able to pay an income tax"
"If income tax publicity meant any
thing" states the Hartford Times, there
would be far less objection to 1t. II Is,
however, even more evil than merely
foolish to print figures which cause
neighbor to gossip about neighbor and
set the various strata of society against
each other when the figures themselves
are totally misleading. Unless one can
have access TO all the facts and figures
that go with an income tax return, no
information of value Is gained"
The South Bend Tribune says "it
seems like burning the barn to kill y
rat, to roll all taxpayers into one big
goldfish In order to enSnare q few men
whose activities are suspicious. Most
thinking people" adds that paper, will
agree that It Is bad enough to have to
lay ones financial secrets before host
of Government employees In an income
tax return without letting the public
In ON them"
The practice. In the Judgment Of the
Fort Wayne NeWa-Sentinel, lis despiea-
BILE, stencil In the nostrils Of out
ot every 10 Americans who must be
placed AT the merry OF the curious one
who viii run riot In an attempt 10 pry
Into his various neighbors' personal
affairs"
Pointing out that both President
Coolidge and Secretary Mellon opposed
the move" the Beilingham Herald ar~
CUES that private affairs are entitled
to reasonable degree Of privacy. Ger
tainly to public good" contends that
paper. "weuld be served by opening the
records of business mans affairs 10
his competitors
The Kansas City Post declares that
many rules OF sound business. as we'll
ms many pakEonal privileges would have
been. suspefssied II the amendment had
become law. The Post believes 1T Ia
eaay Ia isnaains instances In whach in.l