OCR Text |
Show THE INCOME INOLUSIVENESS. Attornoy General Wickershani has given out a formal opinion that tho interest in-terest paid by corporations on United States bonds is to bo included in the gross income report from such corporations corpora-tions under section 38 of tho Act of August 5, 1909. Tho language of that section is absolutely comprohonsivo stating stat-ing that tho income shall .be returned "from all sources." Necessarily therefore, there-fore, the opinion of tho Attornoy General Gen-eral had to be as slated, that ineomo from United States bonds as well as income from all other sources, must bo included in, tho income return. It would appear to follow, also, from tho language of the proposed amendment amend-ment to tho Federal Constitution specifically specifi-cally allowing Congress to enforce an income tax, that interest on U. S. bonds must also be included in tho income rottirn contemplated by that amendment; for it requires the returns to bo mado upon iucomo "from whatever source derived." It would Huts appear from this construction, that the objections of Governor Hughes of New York to the ratification by his Stale of tho proposed pro-posed amendment, are as near frivolous ns anything from that high authority could be so termed. lie objected, it will be remembered, to tho ratification of tho proposed nmondment because it would tax iricome from tho bonds of the State, and if, as appears to follow from tho opinion of Attornoy General Wickershani, Wick-ershani, incomo from the bonds of the United States is also to bo taxed under tho proposod nmondment, tho objoction of Governor Hughes would absolutely fall to the ground. For, if the Congress Con-gress of the United States sees no attack at-tack upon the National credit in the taxation of income from interest on National bonds, suroly no attack upon tho credit of an' Btnto could Jjc assumed as-sumed in the taxation of income do-rived do-rived from inlorest on State bonds. In considering these objections of Governor Hughes some timo back, wo expressed tho same view aB heroin indicated, in-dicated, and now with such viow reinforced rein-forced by tho opinion of Attorney Gen-oral Gen-oral Wickershani, it sooms clear that tho objections of Governor llughes to tho ratification of the income tax amendment amend-ment aro untenable. To bo sure, tho opinion of tho Attornoy General is not equivalent to u decision of tho U. S. Supremo Court. At the same time, how-over, how-over, tho language is all-embracing and positivo in the law, and cither tho law must be not aside altogether or tho opinion of tho Attorney Genoral must prevail. And ns it is necessarily tho provnlont opinion ou this particular stntufd, tho same lino of reasoning would apply to tho proposod constitutional constitu-tional amendment; but in case that amondnieut is ratified by a sufficient number of States, thoro would bo no possibility for uny court to doclaro it invalid, as tho Supremo Court might do in tho case of (lie statute imposing this tax upon corporations. |