Evening star., 1941-11-06
SuprenneCourt
Hears D. T.. Tax
Cases Nov. II
z Federal Employees
File Briefs in Fight
On Income Levy
BY J. A. FOX.

duty here to be exempt from the
District income tax when they claim
ppermanent homes elsewhere-an is
sue that affects upward of 10000
local residents-will be argued in
the Supreme Court November II.
The date was made known today
after Paul NJ. De Hart of the War
and Henry c. Murphy,
a Treasury employe, who are fight
ing the tax on domiciliary grounds,
filed briefs telling the court that
Congress did not intend the tax to
apply to Federal employees unless
they had abandoned their domiciles
in the States.
A resident here since 1914, Mr..
De Hart, divisional chief clerk in
the National Guard Bureau. claimed
domicile in Harrisburg, Pa, and
paid, under protest, a tax of S1636
for 1899. Mr.. Murphy, an economist,
who came here in 1885 protested a
payment of s2555 for the same
period, claiming domicile in Detroit.
They were upheld by the Board of
government took the case to the
Court of Appeals the board ruling
was affirmed on the basis of the
earlier Sweeney case, in which the
court pointed out that Federal duty
requires residence here and that a
Federal employe may maintain his
domlcile in the State from which
he comes unless he gives clear evil
dence of his intention to forego his
State allegiance" The appeal to the
Supreme Court by the District fol-
lowed.
Cite History of Tax.
In support Of the argument that
Congress intended the domiciliary
exemption to apply, the two Federal
workers recite the history of the tax.
According to the report of the
House conferees, it is explained. the
House originally intended to tax all
residents" and incorporated a pro-
vision allowing credits for taxes paid
IN other Jurisdictions. Then the
House amended the measure to ex-
empt members of Congress and
their staffs and when the Senate
rejected this proposal the measure
went 10 conference. where the prin-
clple of taxing every individual
domiciled in the District = ." was
adopted Quoting the subsequent
report Of the House managers point
ing out that the bill made no pro-
vision for tax credits Ito persons
domiciled in the District" who paid
income taxes elsewhere, the briefs
say:
1T seems clear that when the
basis OF tax liability was shifted
from residence TO 'domicile,' no
provision was made for tax credit
because the tax was not to be i'm.
posed on those persons domiciled
outside the District. The omission
OF the tax-credit provision ought
not to be construed as sanctioning
double taxation. but rather as an
indication that the drafers of the
Dill thought it unnecessary to do
so because they had segregated the
/ classes OF taxpayers in such a Uav
as to avoid double taxation; that
+ Is. those persons domiciled in the
States were to pay income taxes
TO the States and those persons
domiciled in the District were to
pay income tax to the District"
OvertOn Quoted.
Contending that this clearly es-
/ tablishes the fact that Congress
/ did not intend to impose double
/ taxation, the litigants next 60 fur
! ther into the question of whether il
was intended that Federal employees
| should pay taxes here or in the
States. On this point, they quote
| Senator Overton, Democrat, of LOU
isiana, chairman of the Senate man.
ayers, as saying that the domiciliary
exemption would apply to the Presi-
dent. cabinet members. members of
Congress and employees generally,
provided such employees have not of
their own vOliti0n surrendered their
domlcileS in the States and have
voluntarily acquired domicileS with
in the District of Columbia" 1t is
contended further that Senator
Overton'S Interpretation of domicile
prevailed among the House con.
ferees with the exception of Sena-
tor DirkSen, Republican. of Illinois.
The briefs also argue that in
dlvlduals may not be domiciled in
more than one place" and that
ruling by the court that Federal
employe is domiciled here would re-
lieve him of domicile in the State
from which appointed and con-
currently relieve him of taxation
in that State since nearly all States
which tax Federal employees in the
District of Columbia do so on the
ground that they are domiciled in
those States"
There are at least "a States which
would lose taxes under such cir
cumstances, the briefs say. In two
States, it is added. the ruling would
result in double taxation, as Mis-
souri, and Delaware impose liability
on the basis of citizenship as well
as residence.
Mr.. Murphy, it has been brought
out previously, is not liable for
any tax in Michigan and has paid
none; Mr.. De Hart has continued
to pay poll tax or occupational taxes
in Pennsylvania. Neither State has
ar income tax.
The litigation will be heard by
seven justices. Chief Justice Stone
and Justice Roberts taking no mart