Evening star., 1938-09-11
OVERLAPPING TAX
PARLEY PLANNED
Roosevelt May Call State
Officials for Discussion
of Remedies.
By the Associated Press.

Presidant Roosevelt may call 6tat<
ofncials 70 q conference on the ques.
ton Of dividing up the sources Of taxa.
ton and reducing overlapping leviea
BY other means. 1t was said in Treas.
ury circles yesterday.
The conference was discussed ~ q
possibility, not certainty.
Although about As far as ever from
solution Of the problem Of overlap
ping taxes, Treasury experts said they
were greatly concerned with the reve-
nue. difdculties of the - competins
tax collectors and the burden on tax
payers.
They pointed out that 36 States, In
addition to the Federal Government
levy income taxes. Twenty-four States
levy sales taxes which, some experts
say. are similar in . sense to the
Federal excises on manufacturers Of
automobiles, radios and certain other
items. Twenty-one States and the
Federal Government have volume
taxes on tobacco. not counting licenses
In the liquor field. especially, all the
States and the Federal Government
compete.
Real Burden on Taxpayers.
One concern Of students Of the prob.
lem is that the competition of differ
ent taxing agencies for the same
types Of taxes will dry up those sources
to the disadvantage of either the
States or Federal Government. or
both.
But the real burden Is on the per-
sons who pay the taxes. The inter-
governmental contest for the tax dol
lar means primarily more forms to
NIL out. more bookkeeping to supply
figures for the forms, and more taxes
to pay to duplicate collectors.
The only sure way of solving the
problem, the experts say, is the one
least Likely OF adoption-a constitu-
tlonai Amendment arbitrarily limiting
the tax fields Of the States and Federal
Government.
Sharing Of the same taxes on a
fixed basis. unified collection systems
and standardization of State taxes
thlough Federal fotion ere some of
the other solutions frequently urged.
Silent on Proposals.
An ofncial spokesman for the Treas.
ury declined to say what proposals.
If any. the Treasury has to offer,
but he added its highest officisls had
agreed In recent conferences that
solution must be found because the
problem is getting more urgent every
day
In Z recent intensive study Of the
question, Carl Shoup, assistant to the
Secretary Of the Treasury, and Rov
6lougn, director of Treasury tax re-
Searcl., concluded:
The conflicts arising from the over
tapping tax powers Of the oifferent
taxing jurisdictions in the United
States can and should be materis llv
reduced. An irreconcilabIe con-
flict admits Of no olear-cut solution
Complete coordination of the tax
system cannot be achieved under a
Federal Government Gin the sense of
system of independent States under
. limited central government. The
most that be hoped for is a series Of
compromises. These Will rot remeve
the fundamental conflict, .ut they
may remove some Of rhe consequences. !"
A Modern Problem.
The tax conflict is essentially a
modern problem. because prior to 1900
the States relied almost exclusively
on property taxes and the Federal
Government depended on customs
duties and few excuses such as the
ones on liquor and tobacco.
One OF the first important efforts
to bring uniformity into State and
Federal taxes affected inheritance
taxes. Since 1925, A States-all ex.
cept Nevada-have adopted similar
estate levies because the Federal Gov
eminent gives a credit up to 80 per
cent OF the 1925 Federal rates for
similar taxes paid States whose laws
meet certain requirements.
This crediting device. also used
three years ago to induce States to
enact unemployment compensat ton
laws, is regarded by the experts As
one Of the most successful expedients
IN reducing tax conflicts. However,
they add. the objection to the device
is that 1t involves bullying of the
States by the Federal Government
In the cases Of both the estate and
unemployment taxes, the States had
the legal right to refuse to levy such
taxes, but stubbornness did not pay
because it meant only that the Federal
Government would collect 100 per cent
OF the tax instead of only 10 to 20
per cent The cost to the taxpayer was
almost identical. and the State would
lose the revenue II 1t refused to 70
along.