Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-20

tax on all professional people
Mr.. Simms asked:
rs not Section 81 in effect
a discriminatory tax on a rela-
lively few persons who achieved
an education such as an archi-
tect. attorney, chemist. chemical
engineer, civil engineer, doctor
industrial engineer, metallurgist
and others, many Of whom are
employed by private research
ORGANIZATIONS"
Points Out Inequities
Another section defines gross
receipts as including supplies
given or used by the licensee
without charge. ASKED Mr.
SimmS:
Would not a businessman who
makes a donation of goods OF
commodities to any church
charity. civic, service school OF
other group for benefit event:
such as fairs, bazaars, door
prizes, ETC.. be subject to a par
Iticularly punitive and unjust ta1
in the application Of this para
Igraph?"
He also questioned whether the
tax might even be construed tc
cover housewife who sells q
secondhand washing machine
church suppers. and even news
paper boys. A county spokesman
said the tax was not intended tc
be so far reaching, but he was
not prepared to say whether II
had been drafted so as to be
interpreted as Mr.. Silmms sug-
gested.
Mr.. Simms noted that the
ordinance would impose a $500
annual license fee on a small
time peddler, and only twice that
much on a multi-million- dollar
distillery business. Mr.. Massey
said that discrepancy had been
discovered after the ordinance
was advertised, the drafters had
prepared an amendment to cover
distilleries more fully.
Calls Language Ambiguous
A provision giving the Super
visor of Assessments authority to
question persons under oath was
challenged by Mr.. Simms
Would not the ordinance clothe
the Supervisor of Assessments
tan administrative and ap-
pointed officiaD with broad ju-
dicial powers, the application Of
which may violate the due pro-
cess Of law and American prin-
ciples of justice?"
He concluded:
I'VE feel the language in many
parts of the ordinance extremely
ambiguous and tending to punt
tive levies.
In spelling out in some de-
tail a few of the many specific
objections we might raise. we do
not overlook a major objection
in the general purpose and ap-
plication of the law. We are con-
WINGED that it will serve as a
serious deterrent to the estah-
lishment of selective business
and light industry within Fairfax
County. The competitive posi-
ton Fairfax County now holds
because its neighboring juris-
dictions to the north impose a
somewhat similar tax will dis
appear overnight. There can be
no argument, surely, with the
contention that Fairfax County
needs, and needs badly, to at
tract tax-beneficial business and
light industry. Only in this way
can we hope to broaden the tax
base and prevent spiraling in
creases in the tax on real
property"
Points to Surplus
The supervisors had antici-
pated half-year's income from
the proposed tax in the current
budget. This amounted to $780,
600. Mr.. Massey said the budget
would not be disrupted this year
by failure to adopt the new tax,
however, since the county has
accrued a 100000 surplus dur
ing the year.
He added. however, that the
amount to be realized from a full
year Of the new tax-nearly
$400. 000-was about the same as
could be raised with a 12-cent
increase in the personal property
and real estate tax rate.