Show I POSTAL CO SUED FOR INCOME TAX U. U S. S Institutes Test Case Charging False ReSi Re- Re Returns Recharging b Si N t turns urns of ott Sow cw York May lay A A su suit t begun III against here t today da by Ly the government o Cable company to re- re the Commercial federal Income taxes tot totaling the government govern govern- o ern 4 i alleged to bo be duo Is- Is Issued statement moat ment was declared in a the defendant defend defend- sued aued tonight ht on behalf of oC to ascertain ant ant to be a n test case allowed be depreciation n should what submarine cables because that Is athin a on judicially judi thing thin that has never before been determined Commercial Cable company compan y Is accused The of or making incorrect mIs misleading mislead mislead- 1 e td- td during the years cars ing In and false ralso returns the o ern 1915 Inclusive and to 1909 court to penalize the tho asks tho the the company compan besides directing directing- It to pa pay to be bo due taxes alleged out o on n b behalf orthe of or v The statement given I n through William J. J Deegan Dee- Dee the com pan of or the Mackay companies com com- gan ran secretary reads merely reelY n a matter of or a 1 This case Is n of or opinion as ag to the amount difference which we are of of depreciation to u u I on our cent 7 allowed per Wo We submarine cables but hut the government o only 2 per percent claims w n o s are art entitled to have o no tax In Income cent The and experience with submarine cables that the testimony of or ox- ox 1 Vc 0 e arc are sure cent is a that 2 per pOl erts will prove pro T ridiculously 1 low figure for Cor such properties prop- prop submarine cables There Is as cafe e ca but nothing else Involved In this the matter of or depreciation and overt every business man knows what a difficult thing that Is This merely Is a test ca case c. c Instituted instituted by b tho the government ov g-ov to ascertain what depreciation should he be allowed on submarine cables because that Is a athing athing thing that has bas never before been judicially Judi judi- Judicially determined The first year involved in this sullIs suit sull Is which is ten years ars ago It has tak taken n the tho government a Ion long timeto time timeto to find out that it objects to our de do- do predation p The Intimation that there absolutely was an any concealment is false because the amount of depreciation tion which was taken b by us In each shown on the year was cr very plainly Income tax forms as called for b by such forms |