We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
S:JNATE TJi^G-ED TO DOUBLE BROADCASTING TAX
Bar from backing down John B, Haggerty^ Chairr.mn of the Inter¬ national Allied Printing Trades association, held by many to be responsible for the proposed levy on broadcasting urged the Senate Finance Committee to double the House tax oT $12,500,000.
The indications at this writing were tliat the controversial paragraphs in the Defence Revenue Bill v/ould not be voted upon for a week or more and that the bill v/ould not be reported to the Senate until after Labor Day, probably Tuesday, September 2.
Hr, Haggerty* s recommendations to the Senate Finance Committee were, in part;
"This presentation, in behalf of the International Allied Print¬ ing Trades Association, comprising the five international unions in the printing industry, representing almost 200,000 skilled v/orkers , favors the doubling of the taxes voted by the House on net time sales cf radio broadcasters. It is our understanding that this Revenue Bill is to be based ON TIL. ABIH IT OP Till TAXP.iYLR TO Pi.Y.
The presentation of the opposition carefully avoids this question of the ability to pay. The Printing Trades Association advocated the levying on the net time sales of radio broadcasters v/ith two purposes in mind. First, the ability of the broadcasters, based upon their own reports to the Federal Communications Commission, to pay, and, secondly, to protect the job opportunities of printing trades workers,
"The opposition to the levying of this tax presented no figures to disprove the contention we made of the ability to 'pajm They raise the cry that this is a tax on advertising. No one has advocated a tax on advertisiiTg , The first questicn is the ability to pay. It is YioTthj of note that the two major networks, y/ith a combined total investment of $4,614,000 had net profits of v,-'59,509,549 for the ten year period 1931-1940 inclusive, also, the net prafits for the years 1931-1935 inclusive, v/ere ..-19, 017,613, while the net profits for the five year period following, 1936-1940 inclusive, were ',.40,491,736, an increase in net profits of some 215 per cent. These net profits are after stated deductions for depreciation of some ,..10,182,021 (19311940) inclusive, and the payment of taxes, including Federal Income and all other operating costs,
''In addition to these unusually high net profits, mainly in depressicn years, the networks principally and the larger radio stations allov/ed to be deducted, by advertising agencies, in the form of rebates and discounts, an additional twenty millions of dollars yearly. These figures do not shov/ in the financial reports of the networks or the radio broadcast stations, as the deduction is allowed before the presentation of the bills, V/hether the broadcasters’ attorney was fearful that your committee might seek to tax such rebates
2