Evening star., 1938-02-27
CHANGE IN COURT
PRACTICE URGED
J. W. Morris Tells Tax Clinic
Rule on Certiorari Writs
Should Be Modified.

Modification of present practice by
which writs of certiorari seldom are
granted in tax cases by the Supreme
Court unless conflicts have developed
between the rulings of inferior courts
was suggested by Assistant Attorney
General James w. Morris before the
sixth tax clinic Of the American Bar
Association yesterday afternoon.
Such modification might be effected,
Mr.. Morris proposed, by giving the
status of judicial sanction to the de-
termination of any inferior court, in
so far as such decision relates to the
construction as well as to the validity
Of provision or regulation. whenever
petition for certiorari to the Supreme
Court has been denied.
Might Require More Time.
Mr.. Morris, who supervises the tax
work of the Justice Department, ad-
mitted operation of this plan might re-
quire more time by the court in acting
on petitions and might result in more
being granted at first. However. he
expressed the conviction that 1T would
soon bring about substantial reduc-
ton of the existing, as we'll as of the
Increased, burden of tax cases, not only
In the Supreme Court, but in all the
inferior tribunals
Present delay represents the greatest
difficulty faced by all parties in tax
proceedings. he pointed out, with
several years of confusion and in
Vulnerable lower court proceedings
often intervening before the Supreme
Court finally considers and rules on
questions at issue. In relatively few
cases, he conceded, the Supreme Court
grants speedy consideration on grounds
OF great public Importance.
How Conflicts Develop.
"At present." he explained. sit is
the rule that denial of certiorari
does not import the approval of the
Supreme Court. On the other hand,
it is probable that many petitions are
denied because the decisions have the
approval of the Supreme Court.
However = no authoritative sane
ton can be found in the denial OF a
petition for certiorari. If the decision
indicates a disapproval of the current
practice of the Treasury Department,
that indicates some change is reces-
sary. However the Treasury Depart
ment is not usually justified in chang
ing its practice until the Supreme
Court speaks, because there is no as
surance that all of the other dnferlor)
courts will follow such decision on
the same question
Consequently, he concluded, re-
peated lower court proceedings con-
tinue until conflict develops.
In a discussion of complexity OF
the income tax law. E. Barret Pretty
man. former general counsel for the
Internal Revenue Bureau and for
mer corporation counsel of the Dis
trict, suggested the rewriting Of the
income tax law by a two or three year
procedure First requisite. Mr. Pretty
man specified, would be the assembly,
indexing and digcsting Of Is years
of income tax information, to be fol-
lowed by the drafting of complete
set of rules. On this basis, he argued,
a simple income tax law then could
be written.
Income Tax Law Criticized.
Mr.. Prettyman criticized the pres
ent income tax law for giving too
much attention to minority classifi-
cations and individual case condi-
tions, which he said should be ad-
ministrative problems.
Differing with Mr.. Prettyman,
Jacob Mertens, jr.. told the confer
ence he believed the law reasonably
satisfactory at present. but suggested
amplification of regulations and
breathing spell with regard to loop
hole chasing"
Other speakers at either the lunch
con or the afternoon session of the
clinic we're John P. Wenchel, assistant
general counsel of the Treasury De-
partment: Charles T. Russell, deputy
commissioner of Internal Revenue;
Roger j. Traynor, Treasury Depart
ment consultant; Mabel Walker WILLIE
brandt, former Assistant Attorney
General, and j. Warren Brock of
Philadelphia.