OCR Text |
Show CORPORATION IM I0IIUTMD Notahle Brief hy Former .Senator .Sena-tor Foraker Raises Question of Constitntionality. UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT PROVISION MEANS Wide Range of Dehate in Senate Sen-ate Cited as Evidence of Ambiguity. WASHINGTON. March S. Attacks on tho constitutionality of the corporation tax loomed Into prominence today whon brlof aflor brief In opposition was filed In tho supreme court. Final argument of tho cases Involving tho question la set for next wock. Prominent among the30 bricf3 was ono of former Senator Forakor of Ohio, solicitor so-licitor for Louis W. Jarod. a stockholder stockhold-er In tho American Multlgraph company of Cleveland, O., who soojes to have tho company enjoined from paying the tax on the ground that It Is unconstitutional. Senator Forakor says the "indefinitencss of tho languago employed" in tho corporation cor-poration tax provision of tho Payno-Aldrlch Payno-Aldrlch tariff law makes It difficult to ascertain just what tho tax Is. Points to Scnato Dobato. Tho debate in tlio senate over the provisions, pro-visions, ho suggests, warrants the claim that the "ambiguous character of tho provision" Is due to an effort to bring it within tho court's jurisdiction, and he contonds that the thing taxed must be one of theso: 1. The business carried on hy the corporation cor-poration to bo taxed. 2. Tho entlro not lncomo from all sources, 3. Tho corporation Itself. 1. Tho franchise to be a corporation. C. The prlvllenge of facility afforded by the incorporation to transact the business busi-ness conducted by the corporation. Ho claims a studied attempt was made to avoid using language that would Indicate Indi-cate that it is business, as such, that Is taxed. Taunting Comment. Ho says It is equally clear that the Trainers Intended to provide a corporation corpora-tion Income lax without laying It on the Income, "and," he added, "equally clear that they did not succeed." "The thing without which no tax Is imposed," says Senator Foraker. "and which, when it Is had, or possessed, determines de-termines the amount of the tax. Is bo palpably the thing taxed that It does violence vio-lence to common sense to clnlm the contrary." con-trary." According to tho natural meaning of the language employed thoro Is some excuse ex-cuse for tlio claim that tho tax Is laid upon the corporation Itself, says the senator In discussing that classification of tho tax. "If Mio tax be on tho corporation as such," ho adds, "because of the advantages advan-tages supposed to attach to corporato organizations or-ganizations for business purpose. It should bo the same for all corporations of the same capital and tho snmo class, but It Is not tho snmo and cannot be the same for all. unless tho Impossible result of equal Incomes from all sources has boon realized." If It Is a tax on the franchise, a corporation, cor-poration, tho senator contends, Jt violates the Implied meaning of tho constitution, that no state shall tax any Instrumentality Instrumental-ity of tho federal governor, nor shall congress tax any Instrumentality of a state government. Question of Publicity. An emphatic attack is mado on the publicity features of the provisions. "The provision Is not only In Violation Viola-tion of the guarantee against unreasonable unreason-able search and seizure, " says the senator, sen-ator, "but It is also In violation of all that senso of Justice and all that spirit of liberty and freedom of action, which our Institutions are supposed to secure to our citizens, and If upheld will be a long step in the direction of nullifying heretofore well -recognized powers of the stnto and such a centralization of force as will make the government at Washington Washing-ton an arbitrary and Irresistible power for evil whon the white house chances to be occupied, as It may be. by an executive who would be disposed to misuse and abuse the tremendous weapons thus placed at his disposal." |