Evening star., 1953-09-11
Court Upho|ds
Arlington Tax,
Citing AZ Case
Stote High Tribunal
Avoids Ruling on
Validity Question
By Alex R. Preston
Stur Stoff CORRESPONDENT

SIoT SIdrF correspondent
sTAUNToN. Va, Sept. IL
in affirming two decisions up
holding Arlington's taxing pow
ers. the Virginia Supreme Court
of Appeals avoided ruling on the
sections Of the law on which
the lower court had based its
opinions.
The court, in effect, reiterated
its findings in a 1912 case yes
terday when it sustained Airing
ton Circuit Court Judge Walter
T. Mccarthy, who upheld the
county's powers to impose taxes
for automobile tags and business
and professional licenses. The
Supreme Court said it was not
necessary to pass upon the
validity Of the laws on which
Judge Mccarthy had based his
findings.
John Locke Green, represent
ing another attorney, Miles
Spence Bray, had contended that
the business and professional
tax adopted by the Arlington
County board on February 2,
1949, was invalid because it
failed to show what statutes
were relied on as authority for
it's adoption. Mr.. Bray refused
to pay a $40 gross receipts tax.
Fined on County Tag.
He also was fined SIS last April
for failure to buy a county tag
for his automobile. He con-
tended that the county ordi-
nance was invalid because it was
local and special legislation pro-
hibited by the State constitution.
He made this same contention
about the business tax, also.
Before it adjourned yester-
day, the Supreme Court said,
These two cases involve similar
constitutional questions, were
heard together and will be dis
posed of by one opinion"
On the issue of the business
tax, Judge Mccarthy had up
held law which gives counties
with a population of at least
1000 per square mile and with
an area of less than so square
miles, authority to assess and
collect a business and profess
sional tax.
I'VE do not find it necessary
to pass upon the constitutional
validity of that section" the
Supreme Court said, because
the ordinance in question was
legal and valid i. under an
other section of the code :"
City Council Powers.
The other section referred to
was upheld by the Supreme
Court in 1912 in a suit involving
the former Elizabeth City Coun-
ty. The court, in the earlier
opinion, ruled on a law giving
governing bodies of certain
counties the same powers as
city councils have, except
powers prohibited by the con-
stitution or by general law.
Among counties receiving
such broad powers were those
having a density of population
of ATS or more to the square
mile"
The court cited specific law
giving city and town councils
the right to impose business
taxes.
The necessity for and the
reasonableness of a classification
are primarily questions for the
legislature" the opinion said.
Similarity Cited.
"It is not too difficult to dis
cover a reasonable basis for
classifying counties having a
population of ATS or more per
square mile as a group suitable
to exercise the powers and au-
thority given to cities and towns.
Such counties may be confronted
with problems similar to those
arising in towns and cities, and
different from these existing in
counties of much less population
density may well be accompa-
MED by more extensive and in
tricate governmental problems
and services, entailing more ex-
pense and requiring additional
sources of revenue -
On the question of the auto
mobile tag tax, the court OBJ
served that this power for towns
and cities was extended in 1948
to counties having a population
in excess of 1000 inhabitants a
square mile"
However, the court added, ''it
is not necessary to decide
whether the extension" of the
automobile tag powers to certain
counties is a special or a general
law. Eevn if the extension pro-
vision were invalidated. the
power still would remain with
towns and cities to impose the
tax and the court has already
held in the Elizabeth City
County case that counties of AIS
persons per square mile would
have the same powers.