Evening star., 1940-08-14
Who Is LOSING?

When VirginiaS s director of motor
vehicles, Marion S. Battle, appeared
recently before a special subcommit-
tee of the House District Committee
to advocate a 100 per cent in
crease in the local gasoline tax, ne
rested his case primarily on the plea
that the discrepancy between the
Districts two-cent tax and Virginia's
five-cent tax has been the cause of
serious loss OF revenue" for the
State.
As to past years, this statement
may be correct, but in the light OF
recent developments 1t Is difficult to
understand what Mr.. Battle meant
when he said that as far as Virginia
is concerned a remedy cannot be
achieved internally" The fact OF
the matter is that a substantial
remedy has been achieved internally,
and was in effect at the time Mr..
Battle gave his testimony.
At the last meeting of the Virginia
Assembly bill was passed which re-
uuires all carriers operating under a
certificate or permit from the State
Corporation Commission to purchase
gasoline in Virginia in proportion to
the mileage travelled in the State. AS
result of that laws operation, 1t is
now disclosed, the Virginia Division
of Motor Vehicles "conServatively
estimates" that the States gas tax
receipts will be increased by $5O,-
900 annually from certifcated
carriers. That approximates the
tax total which Mr.. Battle told
the subcommittee the State lost
in 1899 from this source. No record
is kept of mileage travelled by per-
NIT carriers, and it is therefore i'm
possible to estimate former tax losses
or probable receipts from them under
the new law, but they are covered by
the statute in the same manner as
the certificated carriers.
In his statement to the subcom-
mittee, Mr.. Battle said that Virginia
was reluctant to pass this bill be-
cause it was considered to be In the
nature of trade barrier, although it
is far from clear what difference in
this respect there would be between
the operation Of the law and an in
crease in the Districts tax. Virginia,
as Mr.. Battle said, may have been
reluctant to enact the law, but the
record shows that it was passed by
the House of Delegates without
dissenting vote, which is very un-
usual in the case of any tax measure.
AS a matter of fact, the only ere
luctance" on the part OF the Vir-
ginia lawmakers was directed to an
effort to secure approval by the
Legislature of proposal very SINH
lar to that which Mr.. Battle laid
before the congressional subcommit-
tee. State Senator H. H. Walton
last February introduced resolution
which, if approved, would have
called upon the Virginia delegation
in Congress to use its best efforts to
increase all District motor vehicle
taxes, including gasoline, to an
amount mot less than in adjoining
States" The State Senate rejected
this resolution by an overwhelming
vote after it had been pointed out
that it's enactment would be dad
form" and productive of i'll feeling.
From the record as it now stands
the following conclusions may be
drawn: Cd The Virginia Senate re-
fused to approve essentially the same
proposal for which Mr.. Battle now is
seeking congressional Endorsement.
(2) The State Of Virginia is not suf-
fering any material revenue loss
from the tax discrepancy between
the two Jurisdictions. 60 There is
no evidence that gasoline retailers in
nearby Virginia are suffering serious