| OCR Text |
Show UNCLE SAM'S CALL FOR A SHOW-DOWN, H Curley Callister Qcls The Chance Of A Lifetime- And When He Has Finished Feasting His Eyes On The Business Secrets Of Every Cdrporation H In Utah And The Contiguous Territory Comprising The District Over Which He Has Supervison As U. S. Internal Revenue J H Collector, He Passes Them On Up To The Waiting Ones In WashingtonAfter Which They Become Private Property, Undef Hf The Ruling Of The Latest Federal Hold-up Order, Known As The Corporation Tax Law. B Dismay stalks rampant In corporation high- B ways and by-ways. B Beside it threatening labor troubles, the high B food price agitation, the return from Africa of the t elephant slayer and Brother Meakin's failure to B land a chaplaincy in the army sink to the levels B of negative quantities, while a wail of protest and B complaint that sweeps before it like chaff all other K city, state and national squabbles, surges country Bj wide from the Golden Gate to Manhattan's sky Bi line over the provisions of the government's Cor- B poration Tax Law which, provides that every B business, trade and social association, incorpor- B' aled, stand and deliver to the numerous U. S. In- K ternal Revenue Collectors on or before Tuesday K of tills week, March 1, the most private and confl- K dential statements of their organization and op- B eration, in the form of reports sworn to by the Bj presidents and treasurers of the incorporated as- K sociations. K If corporations, big and little, were as slow B elsewhere to grasp the significance of the new K law, and from all reports they were, as has been H the case in the Internal Revenue District com- Hf prised largely of Utah, then the hue and cry has H but gained its first weak volume and the roar H" that will emanate later from those corporations H which failed to get their reports in on time and HE are therefore liable to fines of from $1,000 to Hf $5,000 will put some new rents in the halo over H "My Policies," which President Taft is trying so H awkwardly to keep intact. Locally the fact that K heavy fines would be imposed if they failed to re- R port, according to the terms of the new law, Hf seemed to break over incorporated businesses and B institutions in a half hearted fashion, until it Bf sprung to life Saturday, Monday and Tuesday last H' with a vengeance, and sent corporation officials B scurrying to Callister's office with the necessary B statements. Many have neglected to file their re- B ports, however, though it is just possible here and B there among the number will be found a company B that estimates a few thousand dollars a small B price u pay for the retention of its trade secrets. B Some corporations have asked for an extension B of time on the ground of physical inability to B complete the necessary work of computation be- B fore the date specified. Others have protested B ' against the requirement which will make a public B' record of the returns and thus put the secrets B, of their business in the hands of their business B i rivals. It has been said that the returns will B not be made public, but the law does not give the B authorities discretion in this matter. It provides B that the returns "shall constitute public records" Bj and that they "shall bo open to inspection." Nat- B urally there is .consternation in some quarters and B more or less emotion manifest wherever business B is done by corporations. But for the gentleman who does the dally quick change locally from tho gum shoes of the "federal bunch" to the office coat of .the Internal Revenue Collector, these should be the happy days. Did the company refuse to do the handsome thing last fall in the way of a little campaign contribution con-tribution at the subtle suggestion of the "bunch" on the ground of a year of fearfully bad business? A casual glance over the sworn report of the business as turned in to Curley by the president and treasurer seems to show a slight discrepancy between its statement of profits and the president's presi-dent's hard luck story of a few months ago, or is it possible the gentleman's memory who attends to these little matters for the Kinkys and Fussies and Curlles is at fault? It's clover and sunshine for the Utah gum shoe crowd and the machine line up a year or so hence will probably be the envy of the palmiest days of R. Smoot's regime. Meanwhile, the corporations have been working work-ing day and night to get their reports in or filing affidavits of their inability to complete the documents docu-ments in the time allotted and petitioning for an extension of time. From all parts of the country come demands that the law shall be repealed. There is a little talk in Washington of evading the requirements of the measure through Executive Execu-tive regulation, but this seems to hold out but slim hope. No one is objecting to the tax the rub comes in the publicity to be given the individual in-dividual reports, as the law provides in section G that the returns shall be filed with the Commissioner Com-missioner of Internal Revenue and become public records "when the assessments shall be made," and in section 5, that the assessments shall be made and the corporations notified "on or before the first day of June of each successive year." Several suits have been started in the courts to test the constitutionality of the law and the first of these, the Stella P. Flint case, is set for trial March 14, and in the meantime an effort is toeing made to get congress to pass an amendment amend-ment extending the time for filing the reports for at least sixty days, so that an opportunity may be had for a decision by the courts before great damage is done. The case of Stella P. Flint as general guar-dip guar-dip A the property of Samuel N. Stone, Jr., against the Stone Tracy Company, of Windsor, Vermont, appealing for protection for her ward against the provisions of the new law, is the leading test case involving the constitutionality of the latter, and its history is of pai'amount interest just now. In tho little town of Windsor, Vermont, there are two small stores doing business side by side. The people from the country for miles around drive to Windsor and make their purchases from one or the other of the two establishments. The pedigree of the rival stores is the same. The parent concern was a partnership, known, as Tuxbury & Stone, dating from 1869. About fifteen years ago, in the ordinary development of the rural trade, of which Wind'sor is the marketplace, Tuxbury & Stone dissolved, or rather resolved itself into the two firms of Stone, Tracy & Co. and Dwight Tuxbury & Sons. The former continued contin-ued 'business at the original stand, on the main street of Windsor, at the corner of the lane leading to the railroad station. The latter built and occupied a new store next door. In this juxtaposition, jux-taposition, the two establishments have carried on an active competition in the same line of general retail mercantile business, and have divided pretty pret-ty nearly equally the trade of Windsor and an area of about twenty square miles of country tributary trib-utary to tiiq town. From cranberries and eggs to wheelbarrows and agricultural implements, each watches the business of the other with acute interest and intelligence, and each strives constantly con-stantly for every legitimate advantage over its neighbor and rival. The difference between the two concerns has been merely one of formal organization, or-ganization, a factor hitherto unimportant. Dwight Tuxbury & Sons are an old-fashioned partnership. Stone, Tracy & Co. incorporated ten years ago under the laws of Vermont as tho Stone-Tracy Company, with a capital of $20,000. Thus, if the corporation income tax is upheld by the Supreme court, the Stone-Tracy Company will pay a tax ou its profits, while the similar concern next door will pay no tax to the federal government. The secrets of the business of the Stone-Tracy Company Com-pany will become matters of public record, open to inspection by the alert competitor next door, unless the language of the sixth, section of the act means nothing. Stella Flint, appealing through her counsel, Maxwell Evarts, for the protection pro-tection of the property of her minor ward, Samuel N Stone, informs the court that the consequences of this federal discrimination will be fatal to the little corporation upon which the law forces the burden of a discriminative tax and the disadvant- ' age of publcity as to its private business. The , Stone-Tracy Company, she says, will be obliged ' to dispose of its assets, wind up its affairs and l go into voluntary dissolution. So, therefore, Stella Flint, in her capacity of guardian of a minor, mi-nor, whose property is, she alleges, threatened with destruction by Federal enactment, has resorted re-sorted to the Federal courts in an attempt to restrain re-strain the directors of the Stone-Tracy Company from making the return required by the act o'f August 5, 1909, or from paying the assessment, if any is levied. |
