Evening star., 1935-03-02
Getting Rid of Pink Slips.

OcttIHS ulu VI x1nh ollpS'
Public opinion has been quick to
respond in protest against the obnox-
ious pink slip" clause in the revenue
act, requiring every taxpayer to file
separately with his March Is return
certain information regarding his in
come and income tax so that the curl
osity of Paul Pry & Company may be
appeased. The House Is going to get
rid OF the clause, if it follows the
decision of a subcommittee of its
Ways and Means Committee reached
yesterday afternoon. Next week
repeater bill will come from Chair
man Doughton of the Ways and
Means Committee, and every effort
will be made to expedite its passage.
The Senate, meanwhile, will ponder
its course in the face of what comes
as near being revolt by the income
taxpayers as anything in the past.
At a conference with the House this
week Senate subcommittee of the
Finance Committee, headed by Sen
ator King as chairman and composed
of Senators La Toilette and Couzens,
indicated that If the House rejected
the pink slip clause the Senate would
insist on the original La Toilette
amendment. This was the amend
ment which last year was dropped
from the bill in conference in favor of
the hurriedly drawn pink slip busi-
ness. It would make public detailed
information on the income tax returns,
to be secured by the curious minded
on payment of a fee. The pink slips
do not require detailed information,
but one of the objections to the pink
slips is that the information furnished
is of no earthly use to anybody except
prying busybodies and racketeers.
The experiment in 1924 with income
tax publicity should convince any,
body that it serves no useful purpose
The publicity was dropped after a
year of trial. In its stead there was
substituted the section which is still
carried in the 1884 act, in addition to
the pink slip clause, providing that
Returns made under this title shall
be open to inspection in the same
manner, to the same extent, and sub
Iect to the same provisions of the law,
including penalties, as returns made
under Title II of the revenue act of
1926; and all returns made under this
act shall constitute public records and
shall be open to public examination
and inspection to such extent as shall
be authorized in rules and regulations
promulgated by the President.
That enables those with real and
legitimate interest in income tax re-
turns-the committees of Congress,
State officials, etc.-to obtain informa-
tion they need. And who else has any
right to this information? The only
State which permits public examina-
ton of income tax returns is Wis
consin, and the Tax Commission Of
that State has said that the publicity
accomplishes no good and may do
considerable harm.
No means should be spared by the
tax collectors or by Congress to see
that there is dutiful compliance with
the income tax law and to take ef-
fective steps against evasion of taxes.
But what has publicity of all returns
got to do with enforcing the law?
Full information is already available
to the Treasury, and the President
can make the returns available to any
one who has right to examine them.
No demand for this publicity has been
voiced by the Treasury or anybody
else concerned with tax collecting.
The House promises to repeal the
meddlesome pink slip business quick
ly. The Senate should follow suit, or
demonstrate for the first time the
questionable advantage to the Govern
ment that lies in making public the
private affairs of its tax-paying citi-
zens.