THE LAND OF LAWS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIII, Issue 209, 3 September 1932, Page 7

THE LAND OF LAWS.

PROPERTY TAX FARCE. NETS LITTLE FISH. ANOTHER U.S. ANOMALY. (By a Special Correspondent.) NEW YORK, August 6. This city has developed a group of supposed taxpayers who will not pay their taxes, and the administration officials frankly inquire, "What of it?" No politics is involved. It is just the "system," something like the winked-at beating of the old blue laws, but the practice of evading taxes has wound red tape around three city departments, I all of which wish that some change could be effected. "They don't pay, they won't pay, and they never will pay us," said William Read, collector of the Bureau of City Collections, shaking his head sadly. He pointed to a book replete with figures, which were the records of receipts and non-receipts from New York's personal propertj' tax. "Last year." he went on, "we should have had £2,000,000, and all we took in was £300,000. So far this year we have done rather well to get about £230,000 of the £2,000,000 due to us." The trouble started in 1880, when the "personal tax" bill was passed by the State Legislature. Since that time there has been constant furore. Communities balked, and amassed •enough votes to have the tax removed locally. Modification followed modification, and as the matter stands now, only this city and Buffalo, and a few minor districts, still have the rather ephemeral burden. Tax on Property. As the emasculate State law now affects the New Yorker, every resident with more than £200 in personal pro[>erty must pay a tax to the city. Last year it was 11/2; this year it is 10/91. The assessment does not concern his ; cash nor his automobile, for those are i taxed elsewhere. But it do«s demand that if he has more than £200 worth of jewellery, neckties, radios, furniture,

fishing tackle or Oriental rugs, for example, ihe must, under the law, give something to the local Board of Estimate. Mrs. Smith, of Park Avenue, with all kinds of smart furnishings, approximating £10,000 in value, in her apartment, is supposed to pay an impost on £9800. But Mrs. Smith doesn't, according to Mr. Read. On the other hand, Charlie Brown, of Amsterdam Avenue, who conscientiously inquires about his legal duty, gives his name and address, lists his few belongings, and is assessed 19/2. He pays it and is thereby licked, Mr. Read admits. From thatt time on he is on the books, whereas the tax department probably has never heard of Mrs. Smith, who maintained discreet silence. Outwitting the City. There is a possibility, however, that Mrs. Smith might be on the tax collector's books. In that case, she merely tears up the bills received, realising that all she must do is to swear before a notary that her property is worth £100 and not £10,000. If, after the six or eight years which may elapse befora a harassed corporation counsel's office finds time to attempt prosecution, she shows her sworn statement, the mattei is concluded. The small, unincorporated merchant has been the big loser in this quaint taxation scheme. His goods are on the shelves, open to public view, and he is easily liable to the action of the appraiser and the collector. But thousands of New Yorkers, whose collective property is worth hundreds of millions, sit smugly behind locked doors through which neither appraiser nor collector may enter. The collector's office, the Bureau of Assessments, and the Corporation Counsel's office tacitly agree with the numerous civic organisations which have called to the attention of the Legislature the obvious futility of spending unreckonecl sums in salaries in attempting collections, and it is hoped that the law will be repealed. — (N.A.N.A.)