Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1932-03-24
ME Bureau of Eficiency's report
on the proposed motor vehicle
weight tax pointed out that the
rates In the hill naSsad by the
House would Weld. with the gas

Il rates In the bill passed by the
House would yield. with the gas
oline tax and other motor vehicle taxes,
a sum far in excess of the needs OF the
highway department that could fairly
be charged to the automobile using
public, and the bureau set up new
taxing rate for trucks, instead Of all
automobiles.
But motor truck users-and the term
includes nearly every commercial con-
Germ of any size in the District OF CO.
lumbia-are prepared to contest the
merits of the Bureau of Eficiency's
plan for weight taxation on the ground
that the bureaus plan Is based on
doubtful premise, thus confusing the
conclusions as to the extent and Wis
dom of the resulting tax burden.
With other points, the Commercial
Motor Vehicle Owners Association OF
the District Of Columbia is prepared TO
emphasize the somewhat ironical fact
that while the Bureau of Efhciency's
general "yardstick" for measuring the
tax to be imposed on Commercial!
vehicles is based on the theoretical
damage to streets inflicted by solid tire
vehicles, the Federal Government and
its agent, the District government,
neither of which would pay any tax on
JTuCkS dllo IlClGASI VI Wl1AIA, GO oe-SAA'
would contribute to the upkeep or ex-
tension of the street system, are among
the chief users of solid tire vehicles.
Trucks That Would Be Affected.
The Mapes measure would reach all
classes of trucks from the corner gro
cery delivery vehicle throughout the
entire range, and would levy mini
mum tax on the "llttle fellow" that Is
placed at S26.25.
theoretically, it is pointed out by a
special committe for the ASSOCIATION
which is studying the field OF taxation
in preparation for arguments in the
Senate hearings, the bureau. by setting
I'D a 6,O00-pound gross minimum Tor
application of the weight tax. would
exempt this general run OF small
retailers. But whether this would
work out in practice is open to question.
Gross Weight Defined.
On this point the bureau report said !:
For tax purposes gross weight snouio
include the chassis and body OF the
vehicle and the maximum permissible
lead as determined by the director OF
vehicles. and trafic."
Now, as the committe points out, a
llRIlb QtllNtly JiuSh may CooAAS "NAoAA
around 5000 pounds. If 1t have a
manufacturers rated capacity of three
fourths of a ton, or 1900 pounds, and
the director should decide to allow a
permissible load of 100 per cent above
the rated capacity and the vehicle it
self creeps over the 3,000-pound mark,
It would be amenable to the bureau tax
schedule.
Further, 1t is emphasized in this
respect, the setting up Of permissible
load of 100 per cent more than rated
capacity is in keeping with common
practice, and the director would be
entirely justified in establishing such
basis for taxation.
And this, of course, would be in addi-
ton to the personal property tax the
bureau proposes be retained.
The estimated minimum tax possible
under the MapeS plan is based on the
imposition that would be made on a
2.10o-pound vehicle, which is the light
est weight in the low-priced field OF q
passenger chassis with truck body. But
here, too, there is an important qualif1-
cation. This quoted weight Is that OF a
current model, and it is pointed out
that by far the majority of the trucks
in service here are several years CID,
dating from a period when construction
was along much heavier lines than at
present.
Estimate Held in Error.
Because the bureau report Is based
on an unknown quantity" the associa-
ton committee says, its estimate that
the weight tax 1t proposes would reach
only 5,082 pneumatic tired vehicles and
net s70,317 is erroneous. AS matter
of fact, 1t is contended, this tax would
yield more than twice the amount set
forth. because of its wider applicability,
and because the rates would be boosted
on those trucks already specified as
being subject to the levy.
THE method determined upon by the
bureau for figuring taxes on trucks is
only one of the many evidences that
their report is based on theories and not
practical knowledge of truck opera
tons" the association committee said
in its statement. Their method is
baSically unjust, in that it would make
| all truck users pay on a basis of a