Harrison's Reports (1951)

Entered as second-eiaes matter January 4, 1821, at the post office at New York, New York, under the act of March 3, 1878. Harrison’s Reports Yearly Subscription Rates: 1270 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS United States $15.00 U. S. Insular Possessions. 16.50 Canada 16.50 Mexico, Cuba, Spain 16.50 Great Britain 17.50 Australia, New Zealand, India, Europe, Asia .... 17.60 35c a Copy (Formerly Sixth Avenue) New York 20, N. Y. A Motion Picture Reviewing Service Devoted Chiefly to the Interests of the Exhibitors Its Editorial Policy: No Problem Too Big for Its Editorial Columns, if It is to Benefit the Exhibitor. Published Weekly by Harrison's Reports, Inc., Publisher P. S. HARRISON, Editor Established July 1, 1919 Circle 7-4622 A REVIEWING SERVICE FREE FROM THE INFLUENCE OF FILM ADVERTISING Vol. XXXIII SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1951 No. 6 THE NEW TAX PROPOSALS The industry as a whole can take considerable satisfaction from the fact that Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snyder, in outlining the President’s program for a $10,000,000,000 boost in taxes, told the House Ways and Means Committee that the present 20 per cent Federal tax on admissions is substantial and that the Treasury Department is not seeking to increase it. There can be no doubt in any one’s mind that the Administration’s thinking in regard to the admission tax has been influenced mainly by the excellent campaign waged last spring by the COMPO Committee on Taxation and Legislation, of which Abram F. Myers was the chairman. Satisfaction can be taken also from the fact that Mr. Snyder recommended sizeable tax increases on competitive entertainment mediums. These include raising the present 10 per cent manufacturers’ excise tax on television sets, radios, phonographs and records to 25 per cent; a new 20 per cent excise tax on the fees charged for the use of bowling alleys and billiard tables to replace the existing tax of only $20 per year on each table and alley; and a 20 per cent tax on golf green fees, which are tax-free at the present time. These proposals, if adopted by Congress, should help the film industry considerably in that it will no longer have to compete for the amusement dollar with other entertainment mediums that are not handicapped by a burdensome excise tax. In spite of the fact that the film industry was not singled out for special taxation, the proposed new tax program as a whole is not good news, for the ten billion dollars extra that the Government seeks to raise to meet defense needs will hit hardest the small taxpayers, who make up the great majority of the country’s movie-goers. As it has already been pointed out in these columns, an increase in taxes, coupled with the rising cost of living, is bound to put a great financial strain on the average man’s pocketbook, and one of the first cuts he will make will be in his normal expenditures for entertainment. This means that the amusement dollar for some time to come will be limited. Whether we get a fair share of it will depend, not only on how well we sell the motion picture theatre as a place of comfort and relaxation at a price within the means of all, but also on a steady supply of meritorious pictures, without which no “go-to-the-movies” campaign can succeed. THE PROPOSED MERGER OF EXHIBITOR ORGANIZATIONS The recently adopted resolution of Allied Theatres of Michigan calling for the merger of all exhibitor groups into a single national exhibitor association has been received with mixed reaction by exhibitors throughout the country, according to a survey made by Film Daily correspondents in a number of key cities. According to the survey, many exhibitors, some with reservations, favor the formation of one national exhibitor association on the grounds that in union there is strength, and that such an organization would eliminate waste and duplication of effort. Moreover, a number of those in favor feel that, once divorcement is complete, all exhibitors regardless of size will have an independent status and that they can best be served by one organization since their problems will be identical. Of those who oppose a merger, many believe that the idea is good theoretically but that it could not work out in practice, mainly because of divergent interests among members, and of petty jealousies among individuals who will seek to control the policies of such an organization. Although the idea of merging the different exhibitor organizations into a single unified group is commendable, Harrison’s Reports is inclined to agree with those who feel that the plan is not feasible. In the opinion of this paper, a single exhibitor organization consisting of large circuits and small operators, even though all will eventually have an independent status, can never work to the benefit of the smaller exhibitors, first, because the interests of the two are in many respects conflicting, and secondly, because the large circuits, by sheer weight of the number of theatres they represent and by virtue of their greater financial support, would dominate such an organization and would force their will on the minority — the small operators. Still another reason why a merger of the exhibitor organizations is not feasible, as pointed out by several of the exhibitors who commented on the proposal, is that the two leading organizations, namely National Allied and TOA, differ on what the functions of an exhibitor group should be. The Theatre Owners of America, whose membership consists mainly of large circuit operators, is concerned largely with such matters as legislation, taxes, theatre television, public relations, product, etc., and for the most part steers clear of trade practices, particularly with respect to film rentals. National Allied, on the other hand, as well (Continued on bac\ page)