|
71st Congress, 3d Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . House
Document No. 825, Vol. III
Papers Relating to the
Foreign Relations
of the
United States
1930
(In Three Volumes)
Volume III
United States
Government Printing Office Washington: 1945
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
GREAT BRITAIN
141
[As result of these negotiations, a supplementary treaty on tenure and
disposition of real and personal property between the United States, Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand was signed at
Washington on May 27, 1936--Department of State Series No. 964; 55 Stat.
1101.]
________________________________________
REFUSAL OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT TO EXEMPT AMERICAN
CONSULAR OFFICERS FROM INCOME TAX ON NONOFFICIAL INCOME
FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE THE UNITED KINGDOM
702.0641/61
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary of State
No. 610
London, January 28, 1930.
[Received February 7, 1930]
Sir: I have the honor to state that on July 6, 1929,
Consul General Halstead informed the Embassy that His Majesty's Inspector
of Inland Revenue had requested the American Consul at Bristol to complete
and return an income tax form, giving the details of all income other than
official emoluments. Consul Willson pointed out to Consul General Halstead
that this was the first time such a request had been made of his office,
and asked for instructions in the matter.
A member of the Embassy brought up the case in conversation
at Office, and on August 21st an informal note was received by the Embassy,
which I quote below:
"We have referred the matter to the Inland Revenue Department who have
ascertained that the request for a return was made by His Majesty's Inspector
of Taxes for Bristol D. 1 District, in accordance with the practice approved
by the department and that as foreign consuls are not expected to furnish
any return in respect of their fees and emoluments, the application to
Mr. Willson was properly limited to a request for details of all income
received by him other than his official emoluments.
"I ought perhaps to add that while foreign consuls in this country
are by concession allowed relief from income tax in respect of their official
fees and emoluments, they enjoy no special relief in respect of income
from any other source, in regard to which they are treated like ordinary
private individuals."
It was subsequently stated by the Foreign Office,
in conversation, that the Inland Revenue people felt they could not make
an exception since the law gave them no discretion in the matter with respect
to consular officers' income from sources other than official ....
The Embassy has been informed by Consul General
Davis, under January 27, 1930, that the Inspector of Taxes has again requested
the American Consul at Bristol to complete an income tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
142
FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1930, VOLUME III
return or give an explanation as to why the return has not been submitted.
I am given to understand that Consul Willson has income apart from his
official salary, and that to pay income tax on this would embarrass him,
especially in view of the high income tax in this country.
In view of the conversations with the Foreign Office,
I have the honor to request the Department's cable instructions as to whether
the American Consul at Bristol should be advised to complete his income
tax return, according to the request of the local authorities at Bristol.
I have [etc.]
(For the Ambassador)
Ray Atherton
Counselor of Embassy
________________________
702.0641/61: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain
(Dawes)
Washington, February 19, 1930 2p.m.
40. Your despatch 610 January 28th. Article 641 United
States Income Tax Regulations provides:
"The income received by foreign consular officers and employees foreign
consulates from investments in the United States in bonds and stocks and
from interest on bank balances as any business carried on by them in the
United States is subject to Federal Income Tax."
Income of such officers from sources outside the United States is
not taxed as Treasury ruling holds that
AAn alien who represents
a foreign country in the capacity of a consular officer, although physically
located within the United States, would not be classed as a resident alien."
Bring the foregoing to the attention foreign office
and urge that reciprocal exemption be granted to American Consul at Bristol.
Cotton
__________________________
702.0641/64:Telegram
The Ambassador in (Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary
LONDON, May 10, 1930
[Received May 10-8:30a.m..
97. Substance of Department's 40, February 19, 2
p.m. was invited to the attention of Foreign Office in oral conversation
and also by note. I am in receipt today of a reply stating inter alia:
"The relief from income tax accorded foreign consuls
in this country dates back to 1842. It applies to the official emoluments
of the
-------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
GREAT BRITAIN
143
consul and has never been extended to income from other conditions.
His Majesty's Government has taken the view that a relief of this scope
is appropriate to consuls and no condition of reciprocity has ever been
made. The relief is given to the consul of a foreign state quite irrespective
of the relief, if any, which that state may give to British Consuls.
The scope of the relief from United Kingdom income
tax has been carefully considered from time to time but the decision has
always been against any alteration."
Dawes
_________________________
702.0641/61
The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes)
No. 458
Washington, August 1, 1930.
SIR: The Department has studied the situation outlined
in the Embassy's telegram No. 97 of May 10, 11 a.m., conveying the refusal
of the British Government to exempt American consular officers in Great
Britain from the payment of income tax on that portion of their non-official
income which is derived outside of the United Kingdom stating that no condition
of reciprocity has ever been made by the British Government with respect
to the liability of foreign consuls in the United Kingdom to the payment
of income tax.
Under existing regulations in the United States,
British consular to this country are regarded as non-resident aliens
by Bureau of Internal Revenue and are accordingly taxed upon only that
portion of their income which is derived from sources within the United
States (See Income Tax Regulations 74, Article 641). You are directed
to bring this matter to the attention of the Foreign Office, taking care
to emphasize the fact that in requesting relief from the United Kingdom's
income tax for American consular officers, this Government desires such
relief to apply only to such portion of their income as is derived from
sources outside of the United Kingdom on a basis of reciprocity.
In this connection, you may, in your discretion,
inform the Foreign that I am advised that in order to tax the income of
foreign consular officers in the United States from sources outside of
the United would be necessary to classify them for taxation purposes as
resident aliens. I am further advised that the matter of classification
one of law but of regulation within the determination of the Treasury Department
and that the classification of foreign consular officers as resident aliens
or non-resident aliens could be made on a reciprocal basis. The Department
would, naturally, be reluctant to request the Treasury to classify British
consular officers as resident aliens for the purpose of levying income
tax upon that portion of their non-official income derived from sources
outside the United States.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
144
FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1930, VOLUME III
However, the Department feels that this aspect of the British Government's
decision with regard to the liability of American consular officers to
the payment of the United Kingdom income tax should be brought to the attention
of the Foreign Office, in order that, relief be denied, there may be no
occasion for misunderstanding if the State Department requests the Treasury
to classify British consular officers as resident aliens.
Very truly yours,
For the Secretary of State
W.R. Castle, Jr.
_______________________________
702.0641/65
The Ambassador in Great Britain (Dawes) to the Secretary of State
No. 1317
London, October 22, 1930
[Received November 4.]
Sir: I have the honor to state that the substance
of the Department's instruction No. 458 of August 1, 1930, regarding the
refusal of the British Government to exempt American Consular officers
in Great Britain from the payment of income tax on that portion of their
non-official income which is derived outside the United Kingdom, was brought
promptly to the attention of the Foreign Office. There is enclosed a copy
of the Embassy's letter dated August 25, 1930, to the Foreign Office in
this regard.
The Embassy has received a reply from the Foreign
Office dated October 20, 1930, stating that there seems to be no possibility
of meeting the United States Government's wishes, for certain stated reasons,
and that the Foreign Office would not regard it as in any way unreasonable
if the United States Government should tax the private income of British
Consular officers in the United States, although it would be very concerned
if British Consular officers were to be called on to pay income tax on
their official salaries.
Respectfully yours,
For the Ambassador
Raymond E. Cox
First Secretary of Embassy
[Enclosure 1]
The Counselor of the American Embassy (Atherton) to the Head of
the
Treaty Department of the British Foreign Office (Warner)
No. T11499/1/73
London, August 25, 1930
MY DEAR ATHERTON: May I refer to your note No. T 5005/1/73 of May 9,
1930,(6) regarding the treatment of consular officers in the matter
-
See telegram No. 97, May 10, 1930, from the Ambassador in Great Britain,
p. 142.
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
GREAT BRITAIN
145
of income tax, concerning which I have been in correspondence with the
Department of State. I venture once again to invite this matter your attention
since, under existing regulations in my country, British consular officers
assigned to the United States are regarded as non-resident aliens by the
Bureau of Internal Revenue and are accordingly taxed on only that
portion of their income which is derived from sources within the United
States (see Income Tax Regulations 74, Article 641). In requesting
relief from income tax in this country for American consular officers the
American Government desires such relief to apply only to that portion of
their non-official income as is derived from sources outside the United
Kingdom on a basis of reciprocity.
With the above facts in mind, may I point out to
you my understanding that in order to tax the income of foreign consular
officers in the United States derived from sources outside the United States
it would be necessary to classify them for taxation purposes as resident
aliens. It would appear that the matter of classification is not
one of law but of regulation within the determination of the United States
Treasury Department and that the classification of foreign consular
officers as resident or non-resident aliens could accordingly be made on
a reciprocal basis.
My object in asking your consideration of the matter
once again is that you may understand the arguments that are being presented
to the Department of State and the possible trend of the deliberations
in the question of the classification of British consular officers in the
United States.
Yours sincerely,
Ray Atherton
[Enclosure 2]
The Head of the Treaty Department of the British Foreign Office
(Warner)
to the Counselor of the American Embassy (Atherton)
No. Tl149911/373
[London,] 20 October, 1930.
MY DEAR ATHERTON: The considerations put forward in your August 25th,
regarding the treatment of consular officers in the matter of income tax,
have been carefully examined but I am sorry to say that there seems to
be no possibility of meeting your Government's wishes, however much we
might wish to do so, for the reasons.
The extra-statutory relief referred to in the third paragraph of my
of my letter of the 9th May last was only unassailable by reason of its
age, and it could hardly have been extended as a matter of administrative
---------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
146
FOREIGN RELATIONS, 1930, VOLUME III
action and without legislation. It has now been given the force of law
by Section 20 of the Finance Act 1930, and it is thought to be quite out
of the question, immediately after that Act has given legality to a practice
of over eighty years standing, to introduce further amendments of the law
in quite a new direction.
It seems possible that the authorities at Washington
do not really appreciate how little tax is in practice payable in these
cases. A Consul's official income is not merely exempt from income tax
but is entirely disregarded in determining the amount of his income, so
that he gets the full benefit of ordinary personal reliefs against his
private income. That is to say, he does not pay tax unless his private
income exceeds one hundred and thirty-five pounds if he is unmarried, and
two hundred twenty-five pounds if he is married, and a considerably larger
sum if he has children. It is only if his private income exceeds four hundred
pounds or five hundred pounds a year that he is called upon to pay any
substantial amount.
We should not of course regard it as in any way
unreasonable that your Government should tax the private income of British
consular officers in the United States, though we should naturally be concerned
if they were to be called on to pay income tax on their official salaries.
Yours sincerely,
G. Warner
[In a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated December 1930 (702.0641/65A),
the Secretary of State wrote: "Under the circumstances you may feel free
to tax the private income of British consular officers in the United States
and I should be glad to informed of the attitude of the Treasury Department
in the premises."
The Acting Secretary of the Treasury wrote on December
27, 19 (702.0611/400): "In reply you are advised that it has been the consistent
policy of this Department to treat foreign consular officers the United
States as nonresident aliens and therefore to tax them only with respect
to their income from sources within the United States, other than their
official compensation received for services rendered in the United States
which is exempt from Federal income tax on the basis of reciprocity. The
Department prefers to adhere to its policy of treating British consular
officers in the United States as nonresident aliens and to tax their private
income only if such income is derived from sources within the United States."]
COMMENT:
I don't think there is much in need of comments after reading the highlights.
There is much more not highlighted that bears considerable study on your
part. Note that sources from within the United States means exactly that,
and not sources from within the States which are not the United States
as shown throughout these papers. Further on you will see where in Iraq
they alter these terms and you see where the word nation DOES NOT mean
the States of the Union, but only that area defined as 10 miles square
and its territories. This will give you a flavor as to the regulations
and not law (see Income Tax Regulations 74, Article 641 on page
145) controls many aspects of the IRC. As stated in many court cases without
regulations there is no law and as stated , "For
tax purposes regulations govern," Dodd v U.S., 223 F. Supp. 785.
This is solidified by the Supreme Court to wit;
". . . we think it important to note
that the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon the violation
of regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury; if
the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties
on anyone." (ibid at 820)
"The Government urges that since only
those who violate these regulations may incur civil or criminal
penalties. It is the actual regulations issued by the Secretary
of the Treasury, and not the broad authorizing language of the statute,
which are to be tested against the standards of the Fourth Amendment, and
that when so tested they are valid." (ibid at 830) California
Bankers Association v Shultz, 416 U.S 21, 39 L. Ed. 2d 812 (1974)
Also note that the Bureau of Internal Revenue and not Internal Revenue Service
is used. But, further on they do mention Internal Revenue Service. I just wanted
to point this out to you so when you get to that part you will be scratching
your head also, as I did. It will become clear after reading all these pages.
I am sorry that I can't scan all the pages so everyone could see the mish mash
of private corporations, banking partners that are involved in these papers
who are stealing the American people blind; and, that the American people did
not heed what Congressman Mc Fadden was trying to tell the people. The only
congressmen I can think of today who are similar to Mc Fadden are Traficant
and Ron Paul.

|