Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1937-04-14
YOUR TAXES
What You Would Pay and How Under
the Bills Proposed in the House.
article No. 3-Parking Lot Tex.
ESTIMATED YIELD-$25,000.
PURP0SE-To increase revenues.
AFFECTS-All parking lot operators.

AFFECTS-All parking lot opera
A LII parking lot operators would
~ have to pay license tax for
| ~ the privilege Of engaging in
their business under the terms
of H. R. $685. one Of the new tax bills
now before the House District Com
mittee.
1t would establish, by law, a sliding
scale to be applied according to the
automobile storage capacity Of each
parking lot area which Is used in the
business Of renting space for the park
ing of motor vehicles for profit or
gain.
The tax would range from IS per
year for lots having capacity OF 10
vehicles or less to a maximum Of $3.50
per year for lots having capacity of
more than 500 vehicles.
Apparently, the license tax would
apply to concessionnaires who operate
parking lots on Government owned
land, under lease, since the bill car
ries no stated exemption, but merely
applies the tax to every owner,
lessor, or manager Of parking lot
area" 1t may be necessary, however,
to settle the point by legal ruling
New Tax to Raise Revenue.
Apparently, also, the measure is in
| tended to impose a privilege tax on
parking lot operators and not merely
to require payment of fee designed
to cover the cost of necessary inspec-
ton and regulation by the District
government, for the license tax scale
proposed is greatly in excess of the
scale adopted last November under a
regulation by the Commissioners. The
new tax, in other words, is to raise
revenue.
This raises question of the
wording of the title to the bill, since
| it states the measure is an amend
ment to the District appropriation
act for the fiscal year 1903 to add a
paragraph establishing the parking
lot license tax. The question of the
appropriateness of the title arises,
since the 1908 appropriation act
already has been amended, in 1882,
| to add sections establishing the Dis
trict's present and general license
| system.
Thus, it is suggested, the bill would
add a tax revenue measure to a
license law based on a system Of
| charging fees calculated only to cover
the cost of inspection, and not in
tended as a tax revenue measure.
| If this is found the case, it is said,
the title could be changed, perhaps
by making the measure separate legis-
| lation and not an amendment to an
old appropriation act.
Though the proposed parking lot
taxes average much more than those
ordered by the Commissioners, the
yield is estimated at only about SIS 900.
| On the other hand, if all the lot oper-
ators were required to pay the maxi
mum fee under the Commissioners
regulations the receipts would total
only some $4,000.
Agitation Began Last Summer.
Agitation for regulation of the
parking lots crystalized last Summer
following complaints that cars were
damaged or stolen, with no liability
attaching to the lot operator.
There was also a recognition of
findings that the District was losing
heavy sums in taxes as old, obsolete
or unrented buildings were RACED
to permit creation of parking lots.
A series Of articles in The Star last
August showed that automobile own
ers were paying out $3.50, 900 year for
parking lot use. One survey showed
there were 1875 privately owned park
ing lots. Within the past three years,
it was found, buildings assessed at ST.
089,000 had been RACED to make way
for parking lots. The District lost
realty taxes of some $4,000 by the
razing of buildings, since the realty
levy thereafter applied only to unim-
proved land. In one such case a
building valued by the District at
! $4,000 and on which there had been
realty tax of $500 year was RACED.
The owner had been receiving no rent
from the building. He was able to
rent the lot for parking purposes for
$4,000 year.
The Federal and District govern
| ments were found to have leased for
parking lot operation six tracts of land
containing 552,310 square feet and
valued at s3,90O,0oO.
AS a result of study of the whole
picture, the Commissioners last No.
vember invoked the District general
license act to establish regulations for
parking lots, requiring all operators
to obtain licenses and imposing fees
designed only to cover the cost of in
spection. The order was to have been
effective March /, but the date was
postponed to June 1, to allow time for
preparation Of property plats and ply
steal changes required in lot facilities.
Scale Of Fees.
The scale Of fees fixed by the Com
missioners ranged from $40 for lots
| having space for Is cars or less, allow
ing 100 square feet per car in all cases;
SIS for lots having space for Is to 100
cars, and $25 for lots for more than
100 cars. There would be no fee for
lots having space for four or less cars.
The maximum tax proposed in the
| pending bill, $3.50 IS 10 times as great
as the maximum provided in the Com
missioners' order, showing that the
| bill would be a revenue measure rather
| than merely fee for inspection serv-
| ice.
The following are the rates carried
in the bill: For lots having a capacity
ADVERTISEMENT.