Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1949-01-28
Arlington Urged
ToAIterP for
Business Tax
Gross Receipts Ideo
Criticized Most at
Second Hearing

With a elf-imposed deadline for
adoption Of a business and profess
sional license tax less than two
weeks away, the Arlington County
Board today was considering new
presented at a second
public hearing last night.
Also scheduled for adoption at
the same time is an ordinance pro-
viding for q local motor vehicls
license tax. Little opposition was
expressed to this at the first public
hearing on December 8, and none
was heard last night.
Last nights hearing was called
primarily on three suggested
to the proposed busis
ness and professional license tax.
Criticism of the entire ordinances,
however, was permitted.
Gross Receipts Tax.
The three amendments would levy
a gross receipts tax on certain land.
lords, would tax stores and trucks Of
nonresident dry cleaners and nons
resident merchants operating from
trucks.
Although little opposition was ex.
pressed to the amendments, thu
gross receipts method of taxation
was opposed.
While board members made no
specific statements, the indication
was that the gross receipts formula
will not be used for pro.
fessional men.
Several board members also ap.
peared to be in favor Of proposal
that all merchants be charged .
fiat fee, plus low rate of tax on
gross incomes over $4,000.
The Arlington Alexandria-Fairfax
Real Estate Board proposed elimi.
nation of the gross receipts tax Of
Is cents per 500 on owners Of
more than two rented houses and
owners of apartments or CONNER
cial property.
Flat Fee Proposed.
AS substitute, w. S. Hoge III,
past president and spokesman, pro-
posed fairly apportioned" fiat
fee similar to the present State levy.
Louis Carl of the Arlington Realty
Co. said the tax as proposed in the
case Of his firm would be 40 times
the present State tax"
L. H. Spiess, a Washington at
torney, opposed the tax on laundry
and bakery trucks. This would
amount to $3.50 on the first vehicle
and 500 each for each additional
one.
Mr.. Spiess said Virginia vehicles
operating in the District are not
subject to special tax nor are
Virginia residents working in the
District taxed by the municipality
Board member Daniel A. Dugan
asserted, in reply, that any time the
board votes a tax on its own bust.
nessmen, it should enact a similar
levy on Washington businessmen
operating in the county. ~
Green Opposes Gross Tax.
The tax on trucks and stores Of
dry cleaners whose plants are out
OF the county was characterized az
legal and fair" by Attorney James
Simmonds, who represented the Ar.
llngton Dry Cleaners Association.
+ Mr.. Simmonds said that non.
resident dry cleaners are not now
paying tax comparable to Airing.
ton firms.
Regarding a gross receipts tax.
county Treasurer John Locke Green
declared it is mot equitable, not
right and not legal"
THE legislators didn't contem.
plate that Mr.. Green said. re-.
ferrlng to the gross receipts method
OF taxing.
Net Income Levy Urged.
Later, Delegate J. Maynard Ma.
gruder, who aided in passage of q
special act giving Arlington power to
impose the business and professional
license tax and the auto lew de,
clared a tax on net income would
be better measure than gross re.
ceipts.''
Attorney Caldwell Kendrick, rep
resenting the Northern Virginia Al.
tomotive Dealers Association, sue.
gested the fiat fee for all merchants
and a gros receipts tax on incomes
OF more than $4,000.
Oren r. Lewis, representing ths
medical and dental professions, re.
iterated opposition to the gross re.
ceipts tax as an income tax" He
suggested that a friendly" suit to
determine its legality would be filed
if it were imposed on professional
men. A rate of So cents per 500.
highest in the ordinance, is proposed
for doctors and dentists.
Board Member F. Freeland Chew
replied that the board had a fiat
fee method under consideration and
that when the ordinance is adopted
the doctors probably will be very