Evening star., 1941-08-05
Tax Revolt

VA NSVOh
The House revolt against the
mandatory joint provision
of the new revenue bill, which was
decisively beaten by a bipartisan
vote of 242 to 100, undoubtedly re-
fected strong public sentiment in
opposition to that provision.
In some respects, however, it is
rather surprising that the opposition
should have been so strong. In the
Ways and Means Committees report
on the bill, it was pointed out that
in 1888 more than 81 per cent of
married taxpaying couples volun-
tarily filed joint returns. This is
explained by the fact that the tax
under a joint return is not higher
than under separate returns unless
the couple has net income for tax
purposes in excess of $4,000.
1t should be remembered that only
about 6,5OO,OOO people in the country
pay 1iASoAiic onACo' Aiido, doouiiiAiAS
the 1898 figures as to Joint returns
would hold good this year, means
that the House has taken the very
unusual step of overriding its Ways
and Means Committee in behalf of
fewer than 6 per cent Of the tax
payers, or, at most, some 10000
individuals.
The fight against the provision
was led by members from the nine
community property States. They
were strongly supported, however, by
other members who felt that the
mandatory joint return would arbi-
trarily work an injustice to house
holds where both husband and wife
have incomes, regardless of whether
their incomes are earned or un-
earned. In this connection, the
House turned deaf ear to the COM
mittee contention that the filing of
separate returns is unfair to those
households in which there is but
one wage Garner, and where a higher
tax must be paid on an equal income.
Other attacks on the provision
were based on the contention that
it would encourage divorces and dis
courage marriages. One of the most
effective criticisms undoubtedly was
that made by Chairman Hatton
Summers of the Judiciary Commit
tee, who contended that the pro-
vision was unconstitutional.
Mr.. Summers, regarded by his
colleagues as an authority on con-
stitutional questions, asserted that
both the majority and minority of
the Supreme Court in the Hooper
case had ruled that Congress does
not have the authority sought to
be exercised in the ioint-return pro-
vision. I'VE operate under conSti-
tutional limitations" he said, which
cannot be removed by recitations of
the percentage of the people affected
or the need for more money. It can
not be done; that is the point, how
ever much we might be willing to
do It,"
AS matters stand, the House has
gone far beyond President Roose-
velt's belated recommendation that
the provision be changed to ex-
empt earned income from the joint
return requirement. The President
felt that unearned income-that
against which the charge Of tax
avoidance commonly is leveled-
should be subjected to the higher
rate, but the House, evidently be-
lieving that the provision was bad
in principle, refused to sanction it
in any form.
Thus, deep hole has been dug in
the volume of anticipated revenue.
The joint return provision was ex-
pected to raise about $323,000, 900,
or, roughly, 10 per cent of the defense
tax receipts. For the Government
to lose this much income at a time
when expenditures are dwarfing rev.
enues is very serious matter,
and a proper regard for the future
of our national finances makes it
imperative that Congress face the
desirability Of overcoming this de-
ficiency.