Evening star., 1941-11-18
DonliciIe Views
Interest Court
In Tax Case
Supreme Tribunol
Hears D. C. Aide
Defend Levy

The Supreme Court today had
under advisement the question as TO
Federal employees, who claim
domicile in other States, could there
by escape payment of the District
income tax. The issue is said to
affect about 10000 or more Govern.
ment employees in Washington.
Arguments on the matter were
concluded before the tribunal yes
terday in the cases of two Federal
employees, who contend their DOM
iciles are in other States, and they
therefore are not subject to the
District income tax They are Henry
c. Murphy, assistant director OF re-
search and statistics in the Treasury
Department. who claims his domicile
is Detroit. and Paul M. De Hart OF
the War Department, who claims his
domicile is Harrisburg, Pa.
The two cases were carried to the
Supreme Court by the District gov
ernment, which had lost its con-
tention in the District Board of Tax
Appeals and in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District Of
Columbia, that the men were
taxable.
Intent Discussed.
Much of the argument before the
high tribunal yesterday, taking more
than two hours. revolved around the
intent Of Congress. and whether a
Federal worker here could vote back
hnr,1o or1d Hn to
District income tax. Danger of
double or triple taxation was de-
bated.
Glenn Simmon. assistant corpora
tion counsel for the District. claimed
the Court of Appeals had erred on
at least four separate points. He said
1t was the real intent of Congress
to allow Federal workers here to
maintain a voting residence back in
their home States and still be DOM
iciled here, and pay an income tax
to the District of Columbia.
Representing the Federal workers,
Harry r. Turkel claimed that the
legislative history of the District
income tax bill pointed to the in
tention of Congress to exempt mem
bers of Congress and Federal en-
ployes who have been brought here
to work for the Government.
Contending the two men were tax
able. Mr.. Simmon charged the Court
of Appeals had erred in applying
the so-called rule of compulsion" to
the cases, on the theory that in
dividuals are compelled to reside
where they do. Federal workers
take their jobs on a voluntary basis
in the civil branches of the Gov.
ernment, he contended.
Rely on Dirksen View.
Under questioning by Justice
FranNurter and Justice Byrnes Mr..
Simmon said the District of Colum.
bia gave greatest weight to inter.
pretations of the District of Column
bia income tax by Representative
Dirksen. who had attended the
meeting of conferees, and not to
the Interpretation of Representa-
tive Nichols of Oklahoma. who was
chairman of the conferees but was
said never to have attended a ses-
sion and had asked the House to
vote against the District income
/ tax.
Senator Overton was quoted BY
/ the taxpayers counsel as interpret
ing the statute to exempt Federal
workers, but District of Columbia
counsel discounted the Senator S
interpretations, saying they repre-
Sented merely expressions of his
personal opinion and do not rep
resent the views of any of the other
| conferees."
Summarizing. Mr.. Turkel argued
for the taxpayers that the intent of
| Congress was not to subject to the
District tax those Federal employees
who retained their State domicilia-
ton. The decision Of the appeals
court was in accordance with the
established principles of law that
domicile is indivisible. he said. and
there is a special rule permitting
Federal employees to retain State
domiciliation. The decision was
equitable" Mr.. Turkel contended
also because it avoided double tax
alton, but a reversal of the decision,
he warned, would Immediately de-
prive at least "a States of the right
to tax Federal employees in the Dis
trict and impose double taxation on
Federal employees from two States,
Missouri and Delaware.
Cites Spread of Tax.
yy1,o,, tho Court y,re
viously held there was no constitu-
tional prohibition against the taxa
ton of Federal salaries by the
States, Mr.. Turkel said, the States
quickly moved in to occupy the tax
field thus opened to them. In 1889,
IT States, he said. removed the eX-
emption Heretofore accorded Fed
eral workers. In 1910 and l941, six
additional States removed the ex-
emption.
Submitting a QUESTIONABLE TO the
80 States with individual income
taxes. Mr.. Turkel said he had asked
whether they considered "a person
who claims to be domiciled in your
State, but who works for the Federal
, Government in the District of CO.
lumbia and maintains a home here,
as liable to your State income tax
on his Federal salary" But of the
81 States which responded, he said,
, the State tax administrations OF %
, States replied that Federal en-
; ployes in the District were subject
to the State income taxes, five re-
piled in the negative and one reply
/ was doubtful
The two taxpayers laid emphasis
through counsel on the Court OF
: Appeals decision in the case OF
James J. Sweeney of Boston. a
Justice Department attorney, who
} obtained exemption from the for
: mer intangible personal property
= tax because domiciled in Boston
The Supreme Court denied a writ
| of habeus corpus at time after the
: intangible tax had been repealed.
The argument was heard by JUS
, tices Byrnes. Douglas. Black, Frank
furter, Murphy and Jackson.
Renefit Proorom ar OOkton