Evening star., 1941-07-14


as hitherto provided by the Consti-
tuition could be given than in the
latest proposal to pool the income
OF husband and wife and subject
each to higher tax rates than would
have to be paid by two other citi-
zens with like income.
Instead of hitting the wealthy
alone, the new tax proposal hits
more severely the persons of mod
est income. Thus the tax increase
due to compulsory joint returns is
178 per cent at the $4,000 level. At
$4,000 of joint income the rate of
increase in taxes is 191 per cent,
while two other citizens under the
new tax laws pay an increase of
only II per cent. With 5000 of
joint income the percentage of in
crease goes to 231 per cent as COM
pared with 25 per cent increase
for two other citizens filing separate
returns but having like income.
court decisions Slted.
Up in the higher brackets no
such rate of increase is to be found.
Thus at 100000 of joint income the
rate of increase is 70 per cent as
against 81 per cent for two other
citizens and at Sl5O,OOO the increase
is so per cent as compared with
18 per cent. AS for the top brack-
cts, where there is a joint income
of 100000, the percentage of in
crease due to compulsory joint re-
turns is only 1l.5 per cent as COM
pared with per cent increase in
taxes to be paid by two other citi-
zens with the same total of 100000
income.
In figuring out these percentages,
1t is assumed that the taxpayers
have no dependents, that the hus-
band in all cases earns tWo-thirds
of the aggregate and his wife one
third and that the husband uni
formly takes a $500 exemption and
the wife $500.
Such discrimination in tax rates
as between citizens earning the
same income is unheard of in the
history of American tax legislation
and it may be that many citizens
will wish to take advantage of their
constitutional privilege of refusing
- 11-I1o ho ady dy,jSa
is an unconstitutional levy. Such
citizens would have logical warrant
for refusing to pay because the
decisions of the Supreme Court in
the past plainly forbade the pooling
of husbands and wife's property for
income tax purposes. Said the Court
in 1881:
Since then, in law and in fact, the
wifes income is in the first degree
her separate property and in no
sense that of her husband, the ques-
ton presented is whether the State
has power by an income tax law to
measure his tax, not by his own
income, but, in part, by that OF
another"
Ruled Arbitrary.
The court then declared the tax
"arbitrary and a denial of due proc
ess" and in support of its view held
that the tax could not be justified
merely as a means of preventing
<~o,Je o,J avociopc or O c O reC1I1a-
ton of marriage. Even the dissent
ing opinion did not suggest that a
Federal statute could govern prop
erty rights of spouseS as could
state statute. Other decisions OF
the Supreme Court follow the same
line of reasoning with respect to
the profound inequality in arbi-
trarily fixing the tax rate of one
citizen with reference to the earnings
of another. The Supreme Court has
even gone so far as to hold that
even where a husband and wife re-
ceive a Joint income from a single
source they may have the legal right
to file a separate return for tax
purposes.
The principal objection to the
filing of a compulsory joint return
for husband and wife is that II such
a forced combination Of the income
of two citizens is upheld by the
present Supreme Court 1t could
mean that thereafter Congress might
feel justified in forcing Joint returns
for father and son, sister and brother,
mother-in-law and husband or wife
and father-i depending upon
how much confiscation was sought
by the arbitrary rates.
If revenue is the sole object and
unfairness and discrimination as
between citizens Is to be dlSre-
garded, then any communal unit
can be made the basis of taxation
by the National Legislature. There
are some conflscationiSts on the
new Supreme Court, but it is doubt
full whether they have majority.
Hence the risks which the confsca-
tionists in Congress are taking in
introducing a complicated and arbi-
trary fornDof taxation would hardly
seem to be worth the cost to the
Government in the confusion and
litigation that will inevitably follow
enactment of a mandatory joint re-
turn.