Evening star., 1940-03-13
Seal Warns
ID. {. Residents
oPay Tax
Risk Of Penalties on
Income Levy Noted
Despite Court Ruling

come tax returns and TO pay the
tax, rather than to run the risk Of
facing penalty charges. was issued
today by Corporation Counsel FL
wood H. Seal, in view Of questions
as to the possible effect on the per-
sonal income tax Of the Court Of
Appeals ruling on the Intangible
personal property levy.
Mr.. Seal said:
1T should be remembered that
the case Of Sweeney versus the Dis
trict of Columbia Involving in
tangible property taxi Just decided
by the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the District Of Columbia
does not ipso facto relieve any one
from filing and paying an income
tax under the current tax law.
'The sworn duty Of District OH
cials Is to see that the returns are
filed and taxes paid, and until such
time as the case is finally settled by
review by the Supreme Court OF
the United States, or a denial by
that court Of a petition for writ Of
certiorari, persons would run .
great risk by failing to file returns to
pay the tax.
File Refund Claim.
IF q person considers himself or
herself domiciled in some jurisdic-
ton other than the District Of Co
lumbia, he or she may have ample
protection by filing a return and
paying the tax and simultaneously
filing a claim for refund.
Assuming that the ruling of the
United States Court of Appeals for
the District be upheld, there still
remains the question of fact as to
whether or not person is or Is not
domiciled in the District"
Under the amendment to the Dis
trict income tax, the deadline for
fling q return and making the first
half payment of the bill has been
moved from March IS to April IS.
There was some further falling Oh in
the number Of taxpayers who ap-
peared today in the first-hoor cor
ridor Of the District Building to seek
the advice of tax consultants In maxi
ing out their returns.
The problem created by the Court
Of Appeals decision, which carries
q presumption Of exemption from
the local income tax for Government
workers stationed here who claim
domicile elsewhere, is having roper.
cussions in Maryland and Virginia.
which have heavy Federal-employe
populations, it was disclosed today
by inquiries at Annapolis and Rich
mond where the ruling Is being
studied.
It appeared certain, however, that
an employe stationed here and re-
siding in Virginia more than SIX
months would be subject to the in
come tax Of that State, irrespective
Of any claim Of domicile elsewhere.
In making this announcement j.
Millard Tawes, State controller, said,
however. that developments here
would be watched closely in view OF
the fact that court action is planned
by the District authorities.
The Maryland Law.
The Maryland law. Mr.. Tawes
pointed out. was drawn to make a
distinction between different types
of residence. He cited:
A person who had his abode in
Maryland on or before December 81,
1899, and who did not maintain
legal voting residence in some other
State, would be presumed to have
taken up domicile in Maryland, and
would be subject to the State tax on
all Of his income, wherever earned
A person who lived In Maryland
six months or more during the year
likewise would be subject to tax on
income wherever earned.
If q person lived in Maryland less
than six months and maintained
legal residence in some other State,
there would be lacking the presump-
ton that he had taken up domicile
in Maryland, and he would be sub
ject to tax only on such income
as had been earned in Maryland.
The Virginia View.
G. H. Morrissett, State tax COM
missioner Of Virginia, said flatly
that six months residence in Vir.
ginia would block any attempt to
evade the income or intangible tax
by domiciliary claim.
The District Of Columbia tax is
restricted by the language Of the law
to persons domiciled In the District, I"
Mr.. Morrissett said. 1T would seem.
therefore, that persons whose DOM
iciles are elsewhere, although they
actually may be living in the District,
are not subject to the District In.
come tax.
"such persons, II their domiciles
be in Virginia, however, are subject
to the Virginia income taxation on
their entire net income wherever
earned, and likewise, are subject to
the Virginia tax On Intangible prop
erty.
Persons actually residing within
Virginia for more than six months Of
the year are residents Of Virginia
for income taxation, as well as tax
alton on intangibles, although they
may claim legal domicile In other
States. The Virginia income tax
law expressly applies not only to
domiciliary residents, but to persons
who maintain their places Of abode
within the State for more than
six months of the year, and this u
true also Is to the Virginia tax on
intangibles."
Appeal Plans Go Ahead.
In the meantime, District ofIicials
went ahead with their plans to seek
q Supreme Court review Of the Court
Of Appeals decision which held that
James ]. Sweeney, . Justice De-
partment attorney claiming domicile
In Boston, was not subject to the tax
on Intangible property, and there
fore, by implication, the income tax
which is replacing the intangible
levy In April.
| Concurrentlv confederation IN he.