certain of them are made public subsequent to their issue to Collectors. Until so published they do not put taxpayers on notice of any departmental interpretation of the law that may be involved in them.

Until August 1919 it was the practice of the Bureau of Internal Revenue to make informal rulings in the form of letters to taxpayers who had submitted abstract questions. Since that date, however, no questions will be answered unless the transaction involved is already completed and all data relevant to it submitted with the question. All names of parties interested must be furnished. For the year ending June 30, 1924, the Bureau answered 54,537 inquiries of taxpayers on technical and administrative questions.

The Bureau publishes each week a bulletin containing new Treasury Decisions, certain Court decisions, amendments to existing Treasury Decisions, and rulings made in cases before the Department, if they are thought to be of general interest. Names of persons and amounts involved are designated by letters, e.g. the x Company, yooo dollars, etc. Digests of the rulings, etc., contained in the bulletins are published quarterly, and twice a year there is published a cumulative bulletin containing all the material published in the bulletins in the previous half-year. Taxpayers are cautioned to exercise care in the use of rulings other than Treasury Decisions, as such rulings often depend on the peculiar facts, and in any event have not the force of law and are not binding upon the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

There are good reasons for the United States policy of making complete information as to the income tax law easily available to all. Under a system which casts upon taxpayers themselves, rather than upon the administrative officials, the burden of making assessments, it is necessary to give taxpayers all possible information to assist them in computing their correct liability. Under such a system no criticism can be made of the Government's policy of publicity. It is the policy of self-assessment making such publicity

necessary that is open to criticism. This feature of the United States law has already been discussed.1

On the other hand, it is difficult to see why information as to the British income tax should be made so hard to obtain. It is true that the Inspector who is supplied with full information is at a great advantage in dealing with taxpayers, but it must be said that it seems a rather unfair advantage. As long as the advantage is fairly used it will involve no great hardship, but there is always the danger that it will not be fairly used. Even if taxpayers had access to a well-arranged and intelligible income tax statute they would be at less disadvantage. When one considers the state of the Income Tax Act of 1918, with its annual amendments, in conjunction with the secrecy which shrouds the administration, one is led to inquire whether improved facilities to the public for information as to the law and its administration would not tend toward a more willing acceptance of income tax burdens.

Closely allied to the above subject is the matter of safeguarding from publicity any information as to taxpayers' affairs which is disclosed in the course of the administration of the income tax. Very little need be said as to British practice in this respect. We have seen that the most careful provisions have been made for keeping secret any such information.

One feature of the United States law requires notice. It is the requirement, introduced by the 1924 law, that the proceedings of the Board of Tax Appeals be open to the public. It is open to anyone who wishes to do so to attend the hearings of the Board and to gain as much information as may be disclosed of the affairs of taxpayers whose appeals are being heard.2

I See p. 268.

In addition to the above step away from secrecy, the 1924 law (Section 257 (b)), introduced a new provision requiring the Commissioner, as soon as practicable each year, to post for public inspection in Collectors' offices, and in such other places as he might determine, lists containing the name and post office address of each person making an income tax return in such district, together with the amount of income tax paid by such person. One year's list was published, and resulted in a great deal of publicity in the newspapers as to the amount of tax paid by various persons in the public eye. The 1926 law did away with this ill-advised provision.

This provision contains possibilities of great dissatisfaction and serves little or no useful purpose. It is impossible to see that it can do anything but harm. It can accomplish nothing but the satisfaction of the idle curiosity of those interested in the private affairs of others, and it is quite possible that in some cases it may provide business rivals with information as to their competitors' financial position -information of which they may make damaging use.1

Revenue Act of 1924, Section 900 (h); Revenue Act of 1926, Section 907 (a).

CHAPTER XIX

CONCLUSION

THE foregoing study of the two schemes of income tax is not, of course, complete, for there remain many features of the two laws that have not been touched upon. But the points neglected are chiefly matters of detail and not of sufficient general interest to warrant including any discussion of them in a work of this kind. The main points have been described and compared, and it is now possible to set down a number of general reflections.

Perhaps the most striking thing about the British law is the fact that its long existence makes it so difficult to change. In the foregoing chapters we have concluded that the law is in need of change in many particulars. But when this has been decided, we are only at the beginning of our difficulties. How can the changes be made without hardship to taxpayers or loss of revenue to the Government? It is continually borne in upon us that a tax law that has existed for a long time cannot easily be changed. In many cases, bad features of the tax have, after they have long been in operation, adjusted themselves and their effects so that what was once unjust eventually works fairly and equitably as among taxpayers. A long established tax practice cannot always be taken at its face value. It may be unsound in theory but successful in practice, and there may exist no reason for changing it except the desire for simplification. Prolonged study of such cases often leads to the conclusion that the upheaval involved in the change will not be worth while. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, above all, be a practical man.

There are, however, a number of features of the British law which are in need of improvement, and to which the

above does not apply. Two things stand in the way. One of these is the fact that changes usually involve a risk of loss of revenue, and British fiscal conditions do not at present permit of taking risks. The other is inertia. The failure to make many of the changes advocated by the 1920 Royal Commission on the Income Tax can be put down to no other cause.

If the state of British public finance does not permit of taking risks, it is equally true that there has never been such urgent necessity for placing the revenue laws on a sound footing. If taxpayers are to be loaded with the heavy taxes they now bear, it is not too much for them to ask that their tax laws should be as nearly perfect as possible. The first step in this direction ought to be a completely new income tax statute. The law of income tax should be codified, and made intelligible and accessible. There is no indication, however, that this step will be taken. It is already six years since the 1920 Commission made its Report. Each year sees another Finance Act adding its amendments to the 1918 statute; each year adds a large number of important legal decisions which are not incorporated in the statute; each year practice and statute grow farther apart.

The salvation of the British income tax is its intelligent and efficient administration. It is a common remark in Great Britain that "the income tax may not be perfect, but it works." This is true, but it is perhaps not generally recognized that it works in spite of its defects, and because of those in charge of its administration. It might work still better if these officers were given better tools. They should have an up-to-date statute; they should have complete powers to call for books and accounts; they should have competent local officials to work with. They are given great discretion and they use it admirably, but is it necessary or desirable that their responsibilities should be so great? They have been obliged to take over responsibilities which properly belong to the legislators. One is tempted to ask how many members of Parliament since 1920 have read the Report of the Royal Commission on the Income Tax A