Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1933-11-21
Gas Tax Differentials.

Gas Tax Differentials.
1t has been the practice of oil and
gasoline distributors to absorb the dill
ferential in gasoline taxes which exists
between some of the States, so that the
filing stations located on the border
line of a State where the tax is low
would not suffer at the hands of com-
petitors located in States where the
tex is high. Under the elaborate price
fixing program of the code for the
petroleum industry this absorption oil
t,e tax would have been prohibited.
T.,> resulting loss of patronage by the
filing stations in hieh-taxing jurisdic-
tons has been the occasion for protest,
s,d in the metropolitan area of WASH
iaoton the filling station proprietors OF
MARYLAND and Virginia have obtained
the alliance of citizens in advocating
measures which would prevent 1t.
Measures advocated have been modif1A
cation of the oil code, or State legisia-
tion which. would recognize the COM
petitive disadvantage of nearby Milling
stations in Maryland and Virginia,
where the tax is higher than in the
District. Some have gone to the
length of advocating a higher tax for
the District in order to prevent threat
ened losses to the filing stations in
MARYLAND and Virginia.
The oil code was to have become ell
fective December /, but Secretary lckes,
who was to have heard protestants oil
the price-fixing and other provisions
YESTERDAY. extended the effective date
to January /. This has led to predic-
tons that the price-fixing provisions,
which have caused much protest, may
be considerably modified.
The last session of the Virginia As
sembly passed law providing that
the State would absorb the gasoline tax
di1erential between Virginia and the
District, making one modification in
taxes for those filling stations within
five miles of the District and another
for those within ten miles. This law
has been held invalid by a State Court
in Fredericksburg on the ground of
discrimination, and the oil men plan
to appeal the case. One of the sugges-
tions made at recent meeting of the
Montgomery County Civic Federation
was that a bill somewhat similar to the
Virginia act be presented to the Mary
land Assembly. That matter is now
being studied by appropriate committees
of citizens. 1t is understood that the
State Supreme Court in Arkansas has
upheld the validity of en- act which
seeks the same ends.
Certainly these various proposals to
prevent a threatened loss Of patronage
by filling stations In the metropolitan
gas taxes imposed by Maryland or VIZ
gfnia and the District of Columbia are
- preferable TO the proposat-which is
1othing short of fantastic that the
gasoline tax imposed In the District Of
Columbia be increased to help the filing
station proprietos located near the Dis
trict. The citizens Of Maryland and
Virginia win be the first to recognize
the obvious inequity Of such proposal
More gasoline taxes are already col
lected in the District of Columbia than
Congress end the Bureau OF the Budget
viii permit 10 be spent. An increase
in the Ioosl gasoline tsx is not justified
by past or present conditions. By no
stretch OF tie ims ginstion can one dis
cover any logic III the argument tnaS be-
cause small class of business men out
side this community may feel the effects
Of competition resulting from the
amount of gasoline taxes they help to
impose upon themselves. the taxes
imposed by alien authority on another
community must be increased. Neither
Virginia nor Maryland would think for
q moment of attempting TO wipe out
the difference in gasoline taxation
existing between them by increasing the
Maryland tax. Fair-minded citizens in
Maryland and Virginia will resent the
suggestion that taxes be increased in
the District to benefit private business
outside the District.