Evening star., 1942-03-17
Confusion Compounded


The latest judicial Interpretation
of the Districts income tax law
serves to further becloud question
of tax liability which had already
approached the ultimate in legalistic
confusion.
At the root of the trouble Is the
manifest intent Of Congress to ex-
empt from the local tax those OF
their constituents who earn their
livelihoods and live in the Capital,
but who vote in the States. This was
accomplished by restricting the tax
to persons "domiciled" in the Dis
trict-a qualification which was GER
tain to be difficult of Interpretation
under the most favorable conditions,
and which, under the various court
rulings, has reached a point where
It Is almost necessary for the taxing
authorities to look into the mind and
determine the intent of every
prospective taxpayer who has any
sort of colorado claim to legal
residence elsewhere.
Some clarification Of this muddle
seemed to be in sight several months
ago. The Supreme Court, which
has q pronounced dislike for any
kind of tax immunity, reversed a
holding by the local Court of Appeals
that strong evidence was required to
overcome the legal presumption that
a person does not intend to give up
a domicne in a State upon coming
to the District to work. Taking the
opposite view, the Supreme Court
said that the burden of proof rests
upon the individual who, living in
the District, claims domicile else
where to escape the local tax. Ger
tain tests by which this intent as
to domicile might be determined
we're enumerated by the court.
1t was on this question of intent
that the Court of Appeals again de-
cided against the District yesterday.
The case at issue involved a former
Congressman from Maine, who has
been practicing law here for the past
six or seven years. The local Board
of Tax Appeals found as fact that
the former Congressman, although
intending to return and take up his
residence in Maine at some time, also
intended to remain in the District
for an indefinite period of time, and
on this basis declared him liable to
the local tax. Maine, incidentally,
has no State income tax, so there was
no question of double taxation.
This finding of fact was reversed
by the Court of Appeals, the decision
declaring the evidence showed that
the former Congressman had his
roots in the State of Maine, that he
intended to maintain his domicile
there, and ultimately to return there
to live. AS a sort of clincher to its
conclusion, the court quoted with
approval the following bit of "ex-
ouisite imagery" by George Eliot: "A
human life should be well rooted in
some spot of native land where it
may get the love of tender kinship
for the face of the earth, for the
sounds and accents that haunt it, a
spot where the def1niteness of early
memories may be inwrought with
affection, and spread, not by senti-
mental effort and reflection, but as a
sweet habit of the bleSt."
With this latest judicial opinion as
q guide, exquisite poetical imagery
and all, District officials again are
examining their income tax law
in an effort to determine its
meaning. To the overburdened Dis
trict taxpayers, supporting those who
seek the love of tender kinship in
some State but earn their livelihood
In the voteless District of Columbia,
the meaning of the tax law is plain
but unprintable.