Evening star., 1942-03-16
District Loses
In Income Tax
.CaseAppeaI
Decision Puts New
Uncertainty Around
Laws Applicability

-
In decision that surrounded
with new uncertainties the ap-
plicability of the District income
tax law to residents claiming
domicile in one of the States, the
United States Court of Appeals
held today that persons living
here who maintain a domiciles
vote and pay taxes regularly in
their home States, and have a.
definite intention to return there
within a specified time do not
have to pay the tax. -
The appellate tribunal reversed a
ruling of the Board of Tax Appeals
for the District which invoked the
tax against Carroll L. Beedy, former
member Of Congress from Maine,
who now practices law here.
The board held that Mr.. Beedy bad
evidenced an intention to give up
his domicile in Maine by living here :
for an indefinite period, but the
Court Of Appeals said the former
Representative is domiciled in
Maine and not in the District, be-
cause he had showed a definite in ,
tention to go back to Maine within
specified time and had kept up lis
home obligations.
New Legal Puzzle Seen.
The court said the boards conclu-
sions ran counter to the Appeals
Court decision in the Sweeney case,
and that of the Supreme Court In
the Murphy case. This litigation
dealt with the taxable status Of
Federal employees here who claimed
domicile elsewhere, and the Beedy
case, therefore, injects the new ele-
ment Of the applicability of the tax
to an individual in private employ
ment.
James ]. Sweeney, a Justice De-
partment attorney, had paid under
protest an assessment of SO cents
on Intangible personal property for
1888 and 1889, contending that, al
though he was employed here, his
domicile was in Boston. The board
denied a refund and the case went
to the Court Of Appeals.
The Supreme Court decision came
in the case of Henry c. Murphy. a
Treasury Department employe, who
came here in 1885, but claimed De-
troit as his domicile in protesting
an income tax payment Of s25.55 for
1899.
While the Court of Appeals laid
down the rule in the Sweeney case
that Federal employe claiming
domicne elsewhere was exempt from
the tax, the Supreme Court said
unanimously that domiciliary status
was question to be decided in each
instance by the Board Of Tax APP
| peals.
The doubt as to the intent Of the
law arose out of the failure of Con-
gress to define "domicile" when en-.
acting the legislation.
Pays Maine Poll Tax.
Mr.. Beedy contended he pays all
applicable taxes in Maine, including
poll tax, and is an enrolled voter in
Portland, where he regularly casts
his vote.
In January, 1885, he made a pro-
fessional connection with a WASH
ington law firm and said he hoped
to get larger fees paid here for
four or five years, re-establish his
finances and return to Maine with
something for his old age. His in
tention was to remain in Washing
ton for a limited time only-at the
longest 10 years-and then spend
the remainder of his life in his home
State. He said he has used his own
furniture in his apartment here and
has at all times desired his domicile
to be in Maine and not in the Dis
trict.
Chief Justice Groner, in the
lengthy decision, pointed out the
board held that Mr.. Beedy's inten-
ton in this respect was not enough.
Further, the court said, the board
ruled adversely to Mr.. Beedy "en-
tirely on the theory that having
stated his intention to remain and
practice law in the District of CO.
lumbia for four or five years and in
no case for more than four or five
years longer, he had thereby left
the time of his return to Maine
uncertain and indefinite" and that
he had only floating" intention
to return and live in Maine. This,
sort of intention, the board main
tanned, did not prevent the acquisi-
tion Of new domicile acquired as
the result of his four years of actual
living in the District.
Today's decision ruled that Mr..
Beedy had kept" and not burned
his bridges in coming to the Dis
trict. The court said 1t was shown
that Maine has always been Mr..
Beedy's family seat" that ne was
not "a bird of passage" there, and
that he intended in the beginning
and at the end to return and pick
up the threads of long and "close
association" and in his absence from
home assumed the responsibilities
of citizenship in the payment Of
all taxes asseSsible against him
there. The tribunal asserted Mr.,
Beedy had so expressed an inten-
ton to return to Maine within a
definite period to the voters Of his
State.
Attorney Magee pointed out that
the Supreme Court, In the Murphy
case, did not decide domicile was
proven or not proven but sent the
case back to the board for further
proceedings. ~
Counsel Offers Analysis. %
Attorney Magee declared: -
"If carefully ana1yzed, the MUIR
ply decision does not change the
law of the domicile or the general
rule that one who alleges change
of domicile has the burden of prov
ing that change" 10
The board ruled that where Q
prima facie domicile has been estab-s
lished in the District the burden is
on the taxpayer to prove change
of domicile, regardless Of his intefi-
ton to return to his home because
of the indefinite period of his stay
here Mr. MaQee said ~