The Wilmington morning star. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1909-1990, 1944-01-29
BY WEsTBROOK PEGLER

ny WESIDhOOh FEGLER
NEW YORK.-Aside from many more OBJ
vious imperfections in the tax laws affecting
incomes, gifts and inheritances there is a
subtle defect expressed in a negative way
which tends to disparage the validity of the
Institution Of marriage and the unity of hus-
band and wife. For the purpose of tax collec.
ton it has been laid down that they are not
unit and that the husband may not endow the
wife with all his worldly goods notwithstand-
ing his vow to do So In principle, he may
provide food, shelter and clothing for her only
to the extent Of one-haf of the basic family
deduction of $1,000 year, all expenditures in
her interest beyond that figure being subject
to strict accounting as $40 for one theaer
ticket and $40 for some household article, per.
haps wash-wringer, up to the sum of $4,000
year. Thereafter any money or object of
value that he gives her that year is subject
to the gift tax and when he dies everything
in the family home, even his old suits and
shoes, the watch that his mother gave him
on his graduation from high school, his books
and the golf clubs that his wife gave him for
Christmas, become part of his estate. They
are subject to inventory and arbitrary ap-
praisal by agents of the treasury and to taxa
ton on the basis of that appraisal if the total
estate left to the wife exceeds $780, 00O incud-
ing insurance. 1t is not customary for the
agents to walk into the house on the heels of
the undertaken, jostling the doctor on his way
out, but under the law they may do so. OF
course this is class law, enforced only
against members of that group known for po-
litical purposes as 1.-The rich" as most estates
at a glance, obviously do not amount to $780,
600. However, the nontaxable amount could
be reduced to S., Congress willing, and every
bereaved home in the land made subject to
search in the name of Democracy
The hostility Of marital unity is revealed
more plainly in the Treasury's attitude toward
the special privilege as it is called. enjoyed
by man and wife in the eight states which
have community property laws. This is net to
suggest that the Treasury actually opposes
marriage. It is just against of the basic
conditions of marriage and for practical, mer-
cenary reasons. The law of these states holds
that what's his is her'n and what's hern is
his'n and thus that their joint annual income
may be divided evenly and reported in halves.
This brings down the tax but upholds the
principle that marriage is an equal partner
ship by contrast with the federal position that
the husband is head man and the wife a de-
pendant entitled to some what less than the
meager maximum figure payable under social
security.
In dispatch from Denver, Roscoe Fleming
SUGGESTS that other states will adopt laws but
I believe the thought is very premature be-
cause there is little temptation to most OF
those with stable incomes to move to the
community property StdICS SASSPt SoopASo Wv
irving theirs from large invested fortunes or
from the practice of, say, medicine or the
law Doctors can do very well in Arizona if
they can get by medical exclusion act de-
signed by the doctors already on the ground
to keep out competition and some smart law
yers can transplant themselves and earn big
incomes anywhere, as some writer's can, too.
But most of the high-salaried class who bear
the heaviest individual burdens in other states
would sacrifice their earning capacity on leav-
ing the scenes of their success.
The disrespect for the family reflected in
the laws is no sudden development OF the new
deal era The question was argued in the
original debates on the income tax amend
mont and the decision was made in favor OF
revenue but the reduction of the allowances
for family responsibilities which all conscien-
tious men will try to meet has been sharp in
recent wears And there never was any allow
ance for the support of an unemployed brother
q. cs,er, for example, unless that dependent
WAS physically unable to work. On the other
hand. the taxpayer was obliged to pay for
the support of strangers who were unem-
nloved but not disabled and the present $780,
200 linz on inheritances plus the proposition
that an elderly widow should be able to live
nicely on about $3.50 month, less income
tax and subject to the risks of investment if
she is able to find something will pay her
as much as per cent.