Evening star., 1945-09-14

not been reinl- FRANK H. Kent
bursed.
Why the Treasury is unable more
promptly to decide this matter is
hard to explain. Many weeks ago
it had all the facts in detailed dep
ositions from Mr.. Hartford, Mr..
Jones and Elliott's tax expert.
Clearly, somebody owes the Gov
ernment Or, at least, SO 1t seems
to most laymen. If Mr.. Hartman
is not entitled to deduct the $780,
900 he is out on the transaction as
a bad debt, then it would seem that
it was gift to Elliott and that Mr..
Hartman owes the Government the
gift tax. But if he Is entitled to
deduct the $4,000 as a bad debt,
then it would apparently be income
for Elliott, who would owe the Gov
ernment the tax.
Question Before Treasury.
OF course, Elliott may have lost
the whole 100000 in his business
and claim lit as a deduction, too.
But it does not seem possible that
both he and Mr. Hartford could be
permitted to deduct the same
money from their seperate returns.
That would be to doublecross the
Government in a pretty big way
and to make real suckers of the
taxpayers, generally. Here is a
transaction in which one man is
ahead 100000 and the other be-
hind $4,000. To repeat. obviously
somebody owes the Government.
The question before the Treasury
ts-which?
This may seem a trivial matter to
some, but there Is a vast amount of
public interest in it all over the
country and there is lot more at
stake than the money. For one
thing, the public is interested in
knowing whether the losses in this
transaction. which was creditable
neither to the lender, the borrower
nor the borrowers father, who was
then President, are to be borne by
the Government-which means the
other taxpayers. The amount may
seem small, but the principle isn't
For another, the decision will
either enhance or diminish the pub
lie confidence in the courage and
tmpartiality of the Treasury in tax
matters. For another, it will help
establish certain facts about the late
President essential to a correct esti-
mate of him. All that is important
1t would be unfortunate, indeed, il
the decision were such as to justify
the idea that influence or politics or
personalities had entered into it.
It is certainly desirable that IT be
clearly on merit and of a character
to convince the people AS a whole
that the principals in this case. in
Guiding the tax expert, formerly a
Treasury official, have not had any
different treatment than would have
been given any other taxpayer.
There is now suggestion that in
the end the buck may be passed to
the Court of Tax Appeals and that
Mr.. Hartford will be permitted to
take his $4,000 deduction and
nothing at all will be done about
Elliott's 100000 profit-on the
theory that he lost that in his busi-
ness. Or they may, after the Hart
ford decision, take Elliott's returns
under further consideration" and
then indefinitely postpone every.
thing, with the idea that the public
does not care.
'H Government the Goat?
Certainly, that would make the
Government the complete goat
Probably, it would end the case, bu
1t would seem an unsatisfactory enc
and undesirable from the Treas
ury's and the taxpayers viewpoint
1t also seems a pity that before tn,
whole shoddy affair is finally dis.
missed, Elliott should not answer
the question in so many minds tt
wit: Why, If he needed this none,
and could not get it from the banks
he did not get it from his father
who was worth we'll over a millior
dollars, or his mother, who hac
made much more than half mil
lion in the last 10 years; or hi
brother, Jimmie, who cleaned VI
very handsomely in the insurance
business, or his brother, Franklin
jr., who married a Du Pont
In other words. why didn't he g
10 his own rich family, which easil.
could have put the money up, in
stead of to rich anti-New Dealer
whom he did not know?
And with all the money in tn,
Roosevelt family, people are entitled
to know more about why the lat,
President let his son default on hi
loans and then got his subordinate
the Federal loan administrator, t,
fix them up at 2 cents on the dollar
Does Elliott still claim it an "in
famous lie" to suggest that hi
father helped him in his financia
transactions or does he admit tn
= truth of the sworn statement of MI
Jones and Mr. Hartford?
There seems slight chance no,
that these questions will be an
swered either in court or commit
tee. And, certainly, the Treasury
In its decision, will steer clear G
them. Yet one would think M
Roosevelt's family and friends woul