Evening star., 1932-06-05

paid taxes on their Intangible personal
property will be excused In March,
1888, from paying the first half Of the
income taxes, provided the amount
paid as personal tax equals or exceeds
the amount assessed as income tax. II
the amount Of the personally tax Is
greater, then an adjustment Is to be
made In the September payment to
take up the slack Under the present
wording Of tho bill, the bureau points
out, as to many taxpayers this would
leave q hiatus Of six months during
which no tax would be paid, and that
would result in the loss Of $1,000, 900
during the first fiscal year Of the tax.
Language Is suggested by the bureau
report to correct this defect in the bill.
Penalty for Evasion or Neglect.
Should the taxpayer neglect or re-
fuse" to file his return in March, the
bill provides. he shall be "liable to q
penalty Of not to exceed $500. to be re-
covered by the legal department Of the
District government in the name Of the
people Of the District" When the tax
payer makes his return the assessor will
calculate the tax, and the taxpayer will
deposit half Of the amount with the
collector Of taxes. Should he fail to dc
this. or to pay the second installment
the following September, a penalty OF
l per cent pen month will be added to
the amount delinquent until the tax Is
paid.
The bureau suggests a penalty for not
making return Of 20 per cent OF the
amount Of the tax.
Tho nono 1tr, v,rosrriboA for q rOOv1Oro
ton that fails to make q return Is that
1t shall not be allowed to make use OF
its corporate franchise until the return
has been made.
Any one feeling "aggrieved" at the
assessors computation Of the tax may
appeal therefrom to the Board Of Per-
sonal Tax Appeals
This provision has been criticized
because 1t allows the same persons who
assessed the tax in the first place to sit
in Judgment on an appeal from their
own decision. 1t Is pointed out that as
to appeals from the decisions of the
Treasury Department on Federal in
come tax matters the case goes to q
board Of Independent tax experts, who
have no duties other than to hear these
appeals and pass upon them. Appeals
also lie from the Federal Board of Tax
Appeals to the various Circuit Courts
OF Appeal and to the District Court OF
Appeals. and (on constitutional issues)
to the United States Supreme Court
On the other side it is argued that the
appeal provided for Is similar to the
appeal In use for many years In real
estate assessments.
The provision for forfeiture Of cor.
porate rights Is also described as vague
and uncertain. Under the District code
1t is the duty Of the United States at
torney to bring proceedings against
corporations which exceed their char.
tered powers. Nothing Is said in the
Dill as to whether any proceeding shall
be brought. and apparently the clause
Is expected to be self-executing.
The assessor Is given plenary power.
to compel the attendance OF witnesses
and to examine them touching the
filing Of the returns, and to compel the
production Of books and papers neces-
sary for the administration of the bill
The bin winds up by repeating the act
relating to the assessment Of intangible
personal property.
Increased Cost Of Administration
II the bill passes, it Is expected that
a separate organization will be set ur
in the assessors office to handle income
tax matters. This will, according tc
the bureau report, require an annual
expenditure Of $48,880 pr the hiring
of two senior auditors, three assista n.
auditors, five junior auditors, six clerks
two stenographers and one messenger
at a salary cost Of $3.50, and printing
and office supplies estimated at $4,000
In suggesting the income tax meas
ure to the House. the Mapes Commit
tee ventured the prophecy that such a
tax, besides being more equitable than
the tax on intangible personal property
would yield s750,000 more per annum
than the latter.
The tax levy under the Intangible
personal property law has shown ar
almost steady increase from $500. 779 SO
In 1918, the year Of its birth. to s2,742,-
1861 in 1881. At the end of 1881. out
of levy for the IA years OF s25, 5,614,-
1914, the District had actually COL
lected all but 5000, 0,288.83. a record
which led the bureau in its report to
remark that the collections in the Dis
trict must have been more efficient than
In any of the States.
High Yields From Intangibles.
The figures, taken from the Official
report: THE finances of the District
of Columbia, for the fiscal year 1881
are as follows: