Evening star., 1937-07-12


special privilege was granted to the
Presidents wife.
Based on such rulings as have been
formally announced, Mrs Roosevelt
was poorly advised when she made a
contract to sell her services for 81
and then assigned $4,000 of income
per week to other parties. The rules
of the Internal Revenue Bureau have
been that income, even for charity,
cannot be assigned.
But assuming that there is now
somewhere in the Internal Revenue
Bureau a secret ruling which makes
it proper for a taxpayer to do what
Mrs, Roosevelt did. the question then
will be asked why Representative
Hamilton Fish saw fit to bring the
matter to public attention. The an
swer is that many Of the other tax
payers whose names were dragged into
the limehgnt did what they thought
was legal, too. and what the Board of
Tax Appeals had ruled was legal vet
the administration did not hesitate
. to pillory those individuals.
No Sympathy for Evaders.
Now there are some persons who
undoubtedly eyaded the law and are
subject to penalty. For them there
ts no sympathy There is curiosity
as to why the Treasury Department
waited so LONG to reveal what has hap
pened and also why the Treasury
didn't proceed long ago in the proper
way to prosecute these cases, instead
OF trying them out in the headlines.
Many observers are saying: After
all, however Mrs Roosevelt did what
she did in order to benefit charities
and not for personal gain" That is
true and the Presidents wife deserves
every commendation for going to all
the trouble she does to earn money
for charity. Hers is a fine example
of generosity and public spirit
But, on the other hand, is Mrs.
Roosevelt to be Judged by one stand
ard and the other taxpayers by an
|other? Take the case of Alfred P.
Sloan. ir. He was revealed to have
been giving s250,O0O year to charity.
paying somewhere in the neiehbor-
hood CT S1,5O0.0OO in taxes to the
Federal Government last year. Is
such a man to be credited with i'm
proper motives ana to be subjected to
headline attack just because the
technical experts differ on whether an
item of depreciation and insurance on
his boat was or was not correct? BY
some experts it is estimated that his
tax would not have been increased
by about $4,000 per year and Ger
tainly not in excess of $4,000. Is a
man who gives S2500OO a year to
charity and Sl,500000 to the Treas
ury in taxes to be adjudged a tax
dodger because Of a technical dispute
over an item of depreciation, especially
when his attorneys advised him that
he was entitled to the deduction as a
result of the Treasury's own ruling?
President Roosevelt himself dis
cussed with the newspaper corre-
spondents three years ago this sub
ject Of depreciation and told how he
had taken a deduction on a barn which
was built in revolutionary war times.
He spoke of it as an example of weak
nesses in the law. He ought not by
any means TO be called a tax dodger
because of this. but it certainly in
dicates that he himself took everv
legal deduction to which he was en-
titled.
Others Are Branded
= Other taxpayers are now being
branded as tax dodgers for doing the
same thing. Why? Because the ad-
ministration believes in a policy of
"smearlng'' those who disagree with
Its views.
OF all the names furnished to the
congressional hearings by the Treas
ury Department, nearly all were per-
sons who had been opposing the ad-
mlnlstratlon. That's why Congress
man Fish thought it was about time
IN the interests of fair play to show
that other persons high up in the
administration were using legal loop-
holes, too.
The tax evaders, who did something
Illegal, were Jumped together with the
tax avoiders. who, of course. complied
with the law. No effort was made
to distinguish these two groups
Obviously all such loopholes should
be plugged. But it will be asked
IN all candor why was it neces
sary for the President to order
his Secretary of the Treasury to give
specific names at the tax hearings? ?
Would not the same purpose have been
served by numbering or lettering the
cases and giving all the pertinent
details? This would have satisfied
the needs of Congress from the stand
point OF legislating to plug loopholes
The fact that this fair plan was not
used and that instead the admins
tration sought to mar the reputation
for integrity OF some of the most re-
spected citizens in the country is a
blot that will not soon be erased Per-
hapS under the code of all is fair in
politics the course taken will be con-
sidered justified in the minds of the
President and his advisers. But il
such position is adopted the admin
istration must be prepared for a re-
lentless attack on its own personnel
wherever they may be vulnerable
Even the President will then moi
find himself immune from such crit
icism by opposition members of Con-
gress. For while the committee votec
not to 60 into the personal affairs ol
the President at the tax inquiry ou,
Of respect for his Office, it will be notec
: that no such consideration was eiver
by the President to the citizens whose
names were dragged into the headlines
by hts orders.