Evening star., 1953-04-24
Loxity in Tax Enforcement

The Bullock case has brought to light some
amazing laxitieS in past administration of the
Districts income tax law The disclosures even
with due consideration of official explanations
do not sit well with citizens who have assumed
that all taxpayers were being required to
comply with the law. They want to know why
Police Inspector Bullock until recently was able
to get away with failure to file returns in 1916,
l947 and l948-and whether others even now
are getting away with it.
The story is not pretty one It shows that
until 1850 there was no system for checking up
on citizens who failed to file returns and that
until 1851 the assessors files were deplorably
outmoded, with no way Of finding out at
glance the status Of any taxpayer with respect
to his various returns. The unbusinesslike situa-
ton was complicated by shortage of personnel
to do any real checking, even after procedures
were improved.
It was easy for taxpayer to escape detec-
tion and punishment for failure to file return
prior to February 1850. Before that time there
was simply no procedure for discovering evaders.
Those who sent in returns voluntarily were
taxed and those who neglected to file returns
could go their merry way without fear of being
caught In 1949 however, a new law required
employers to file with the District assessor an
information slip giving the amount paid during
the previous year to each employe The first Of
these information slips began to arrive at the
District Building in February of 1850. Before
long the small staf of the assessors Office found
itself sWamped with some 100000 such slips
more than could possibly be handled properly.
When James L. Martin took over as assessor
the following year he decided not only to ask
for more personnel but to reorganize the filing
and index system to facilitate checking of re-
turns. Until this modernization of the files was
effected late in 1851 there was no master index
to which the assessor could turn to find quickly
whether or not taxpayer had filed returns
for period of years.
1t was because of these deficiencies in the
assessment setup that Inspector Bullocks fall
ure to file returns for three years prior to pas
sage of the 1949 law escaped notice until last
year, according to Assessor Martin How much
longer matters might have gone on that way
but for the congressional inquiries into the
finances Of several key police officers is a matter
for speculation. Mr. Martin says that as soon
: as the Bullock case came to his attention, he
notified the officer in writing and asked an ex-
PLANTATION. He received no reply either to that
letter or to several subsequent inquiries. Under
ordinary circumstances the assessor would have
taken legal action Immediately under the law,
which provides penalties for deliberate failure
to file returns. But, since there is no statute
of limitations in such cases, the District decided
to await the outcome of Federal investigation
Of BullockS income-tax affairs. That was
reasonable decision
But why District authorities were so long
In correcting the shocking defects in the assess
ment system-defectS which invited evasion
and protected evaders-remainS a mystery.
Those in charge of the current reorganization
Of the District government should give special
attention to this phase of the city's tax pro-
gram in the interest of equitable enforcement
Of local tax laws.