Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

An international competition has been held to secure designs for the lighthouse. Several hundred architects from 46 countries participated. The exposition of their designs, in charge of Mr. Kelsey, was held at Madrid under the patronage of the King of Spain and elicited so much interest that upon an invitation from the Italian Government the whole collection was taken to Rome and put on exhibition there. An international jury of award, selected by the competitors, judged the designs and awarded prizes to 10 of the architects competing. The second competition, limited to the 10 who received prizes under the first competition, will be held in Rio de Janeiro in 1931, for the final selection of the design.

The whole of the expense of these competitions, together with all other preliminary work, is borne by the Dominican Republic which has appropriated $300,000 for this purpose. The Dominican Republic has also set aside a site of 2,500 acres for the erection of this lighthouse and for the Pan American park and aviation landing field which is to be a part of the memorial.

Of this park, Mr. Kelsey, technical advisor of the committee on the memorial lighthouse, said to your committee:

Of course they thought that I was asking for a good deal when I asked for 2,500 acres, but that was necessary to provide for every possible eventuality for runways for the big planes. Frequently they require from half a mile to a mile to rise off the ground, with sometimes 10,000 pounds, and everything is possible in aviation. Therefore, in order to provide for all the needs of navigation between the two continents, and also to give dignity and presence to this monument, like the Lincoln monument here on the Mall, we asked for 2,500 acres, which has been granted.

Mr. Davila, Resident Commissioner from Porto Rico, the author of the resolution, came before your committee with an interesting statement of some length, from which we quote the following:

The Fifth International Conference of American States, held at Santiago de Chile April 24, 1923, adopted a resolution recommending to the Government of the American Republics the erection of a monumental lighthouse, to be called Columbus, on the coast of Santo Domingo, capital of the Dominican Republic. The island of Santo Domingo was selected to honor the memory of the great discoverer because it was the scene of the glories and the misfortunes of that illustrious and learned man, and because of its intimate association with his history.

Col.

It is obvious that these are bases of unquestionable importance for the erection of the memorial in Santo Domingo. That was the place selected by Columbus for a sepulcher; and the marvelous beauty and resources of the country, its historical associations and numerous attractions, all point to Santo Domingo as the place above all others in America as the site for such a monument. Charles A. Lindbergh happily remarked when he landed at the port of Santo Domingo City on his good-will flight in the Americas, that such a memorial to Columbus, "who showed the world new routes of travel," would be an inspiration to aviation, which would do so much for the development of the West Indies. Historically, the island of Santo Domingo is of great interest to the Pan American countries. It was the first portion of the New World to be conquered, colonized, and civilized by Europeans. From Hispaniola Herman Cortes, led for the conquest of Montezuma and his Mexican empire; Pizarro went to conquer the Inca realm in Peru; Balboa to discover the great South Sea; Ojeda to colonize the mainland at Venezuela; Velazquez to settle Cuba; Ponce de Leon to Porto Rico; Esquivel to Jamaica. Here was, in brief, the base of operations for the conquistadores. Hispaniola was the center whence the Spanish people and culture spread. Here the first college in America was established, St. Thomas College, founded in 1497, 139 years before Harvard College. Here the first fort, Fort Natividad, was built with timbers salvaged from the wreck of the caravel Santa Maria, one of Columbus's three vessels on his first voyage. Here the first European city in the New World, Isabela, was founded in 1493, and the

first mass in America celebrated in this city early in 1494. Indians and Europeans fought for the first time on ground where later rose the old city of La Vega. Here Fray Bartholomew de las Casas did much of his work for the relief of the oppressed Indians; here the first treaty of peace between Europe and America, a forerunner of the American Declaration of Independence, and the result of the first successful rebellion of the New World against the Old, was drafted between the powerful Emperor Charles I of Spain and the intrepid Indian chieftain, Enriquillo. It amounted to the abolition of Indian slavery and a granting to the Indians of certain of those inalienable rights which the Jeffersonian document was to uphold so fervently 250 years later.

The present status of the undertaking is indicated by the following letter from the Director General of the Pan American Union:

Hon. STEPHEN G. PORTER,

Chairman Committee on Foreign Affairs,

DECEMBER 28, 1929.

House of Representatives, Washington.

MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN: As you are probably aware, the first stage in the international competition of architects for the Columbus Memorial Lighthouse has been completed. The exposition of designs was held at Madrid under the patronage of the King of Spain, and the international jury awarded the 10 prizes as provided for under the terms of the competition. The competition now enters the second stage and will be limited to the 10 architects who were awarded prizes under the first competition.

Matters have now reached the point where it is highly desirable that the contribution of the Government of the United States, as provided for in the bill now pending, be made at the earliest possible moment. As you probably know, the Government of the Dominican Republic is defraying all of the expenses involved in the preliminary work, including the expenses of the two architectural competitions. Every dollar contributed by the Government of the United States will, therefore, be used in the actual construction of the lighthouse.

I sincerely hope that you will find it possible to give your early attention to this matter, and beg to remain, my dear Mr. Chairman,

Very sincerely yours,

L. S. Rowe, Director General.

O

EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION IN CASE OF COMMUNITY INCOME

MAY 23, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. HAWLEY, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. J. Res. 340]

The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 340) extending the time for the assessment, refund, and credit of income taxes for 1927 and 1928 in the case of married individuals having community income, having had the same under consideration, report it back to the House without amendment, and recommend that the resolution do pass.

The legislation herein proposed extends for one year the periods of limitation in respect of the assessment, refund, and credit of income taxes in the case of any married individual where such individual or his or her spouse filed a separate income-tax return and included in such return the income which, under the laws of the State, upon receipt became community property. The period for the taxable year 1927 under the revenue act of 1926 was three years. The period for the year 1928 under the revenue act of 1928 was two years. Sections 1 and 2 of this resolution extend such periods to four and three years, respectively.

The effect of section 3 is to make the extended periods of limitation provided in the joint resolution as if they were the periods provided in sections 277 and 284 of the revenue act of 1926 and sections 275 and 322 of the revenue act of 1928, respectively, so that wherever in those acts the period of limitation or the statute of limitations provided in section 277 or 284 of the 1926 act or in section 275 or 322 of the 1928 act is referred to, such period or statute as extended by this joint resolution will be included. For example: Section 275 of the revenue act of 1928 provides a 2-year period of limitation on the assessment of income taxes imposed by that act, and section 277 provides that the "running of the statute of limitations provided in

on the making of assessments

* * *

in

section 275 * respect to any deficiency, shall (after the mailing of a notice under section 272 (a)) be suspended for the period during which the commissioner is prohibited from making the assessment and for 60 days thereafter." By virtue of the provisions of section 3 of the joint resolution the statute of limitations "provided in section 275" comprehends not only the 2-year period but the 2-year period as extended for an additional year by section 2 of the joint resolution. As a result the extended period of limitation is made effective to the same degree as if the limitation sections of the revenue acts of 1926 and 1928 were themselves amended to provide for the extended periods of limitation provided in the joint resolution.

The necessity for the enactment of this resolution is fully set forth by the Acting Secretary of the Treasury in his letter to the chairman of the committee under date of May 10, 1930, as follows:

Hon. WILLIS C. HAWLEY,

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means,

House of Representatives.

MAY 10, 1930.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Transmitted herewith is a draft of a proposed joint resolution extending the periods of limitation in respect of assessments, refunds, and credits of income taxes for the taxable year 1927 and the taxable year 1928, in the case of a married individual where such individual or his or her spouse filed a separate income-tax return and included therein community income.

The enactment of this proposed legislation at the present session of the Congress is essential to the solution of the problem which has arisen in connection with the community property test case (Poe v. Seaborn), now pending before the United States Supreme Court. The Solicitor General of the United States has advised the department that this case will go over to the fall term of the court, and that it is highly improbable that a decision will be handed down prior to the first decision day in January, 1931. There is no assurance that a decision will be handed down even then.

The following is a brief history of the community property income issue: The Attorney General of the United States in an opinion dated September 10, 1920 (32 Op. Atty. Gen. 298, T. D. 3071, C. B. 3221, the date being stated as August 24 in the Treasury Decision), with respect to Texas, and in an opinion dated February 26, 1921 (32 Op. Atty. Gen. 435, T. D. 3138, C. B. 4, 238), with respect to Washington, Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Nevada, held that in rendering income-tax returns a husband and wife might each report one-half of the income which under the laws of the respective States became, simultaneously with its receipt, community property. On January 4, 1926, the United States Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Robbins (46 S. Ct. 148, 269 U. S. 315, T. D. 3817, C. B. V-1, 188) sustained the position of the department in taxing all community income to the husband under the laws of the State of California in effect at that time. The Supreme Court of the United States in the course of its opinion stated as follows:

66* * * Even if we are wrong as to the law of California and assume that the wife had an interest in the community income that Congress could tax if so minded, it does not follow that Congress could not tax the husband for the whole. Although restricted in the matter of gifts, etc., he alone has the disposition of the fund. He may spend substantially as he chooses, and if he wastes it in debauchery the wife has no redress. * * * That he may be taxed for such a fund seems to us to need no argument. The same and further considerations lead to the conclusion that it was intended to tax him for the whole. he who has all the power [should] bear the burden * * * the husband [is] the most obvious target for the shaft * *

* *

Under date of July 16, 1927, in a letter addressed to this department (35 Op. Att. Gen. 265), the Attorney General withdrew his two former opinions relating to community-property income for the reason that the decision in the case of United States v. Robbins had raised a very substantial doubt as to the soundness of the two former opinions, leaving the Treasury Department to take any position it might consider proper under the laws of the several States with respect to the reporting of community income.

This situation resulted in the preparation of a proposed Treasury decision applicable to all the community-property States, amending the income-tax regulations of the department and denying to husband and wife the right to divide community income in making income-tax returns. While this Treasury decision was in the course of preparation, Representatives in Congress from community-property States urged upon the department that the regulations should not be so amended until required by a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. They insisted that the language in the Robbins opinion which supported the proposed amendment was dicta, and that it was unjust to reverse the prior practice and procedure of the department in effect over a long period of years on account of mere dicta, particularly when such reversal would affect over a hundred thousand taxpayers in the community-property States.

Attention was called to the fact that if the department made the amendment and eventually was found to be wrong, it would have to make refunds to this vast number of taxpayers, resulting in a large amount of unnecessary administrative work. In accordance with the views thus urged upon the department it was finally decided that the proposed Treasury decision should not be issued until test cases with respect to the community property issue should have been litigated through the Supreme Court and final decisions obtained. It was the concensus of opinion at that time that any change in the prior practice and procedure of the department should not be made retroactive beyond the taxable year 1927. Expectations were that a decision of the Supreme Court would be handed down during the 1930 spring term of the court, leaving ample time for the department satisfactorily to close all community income cases for the taxable years 1927 and 1928 before the running of the statute of limitations. Upon such understanding the department published I. T. Mimeograph Coll. No. 3723 dated April 6, 1929 (C. B. VIII-1, 89), a copy of which is attached hereto. The following rules, among others, were laid down in the mimeograph governing the procedure to be followed in the audit of such returns for 1927 and subsequent taxable years:

"(2) The audit of returns filed upon the so-called community property basis for 1927 and subsequent taxable years will be governed by the following rules:

[blocks in formation]

"(c) If the adjustment of all of the other issues results in no change in tax liability, the returns will be filed in the collector's office or the Income Tax Unit in Washington, as the case may be, after the usual review, and the returns will be appropriately flagged in the files so that they may be readily withdrawn and assembled for a supplemental audit in the event the final decision of the court sustains the bureau's position. (But see par. (i) below.)

(d) If the taxpayer acquiesces in the proposed adjustment of the other issues and such adjustment results in a change in tax liability, the administrative file in the case, after the usual review, will be appropriately labeled, and, pending the final court decision, will be held in the office of the internal-revenue agent in charge. This type of cases will be treated by collectors in the same manner as protest cases and will be transmitted to the appropriate internal-revenue agent in charge. The taxpayer will be advised to protect his interests with respect to any overpayments by filing a claim for refund within the statutory period of limitation properly applicable thereto.

*

"(h) Those returns which are closed and filed, or which may hereafter be accepted and sent to the files as properly prepared (except for the community property issue), will be flagged in the files as in paragraph (c) above. This paragraph does not apply to those cases which may have been finally closed under section 1106 (b) of the revenue act of 1926 or section 606 of the revenue act of 1928.

"(i) If the final decision of the court is in favor of the bureau's position, the return sent to the files will be subject to a supplemental audit only in those cases where the additional tax will be sufficient in amount to justify the time and expense in taking such action."

Under the above-quoted provisions of the mimeograph there are now approximately 100,000 returns for the calendar years 1927 and 1928 being held in the Income Tax Unit in Washington awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court. There are also approximately 200 returns for the fiscal years 1927 and 1928 which are being so held. In addition, there are at least 10,000 returns for the taxable years 1927 and 1928 being held in the offices of the several internalrevenue agents in charge. The amount of additional taxes to be collected on

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »