Heinl radio business letter (July-Dec 1941)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

L FRANCHISE SUGGESTION BECLOUDS TAX VICTORY The belief that there will be some kind of a working agree¬ ment between the Senate Finance Committee and the x^ederal Communica¬ tions Committee in an effort to levy a franchise tax on radio stations somewhat dampens the sweeping victory of the elimination from the defense revenue bill of the proposed '^12, 500,000 tax on broadcast time. The tl:eory that the broadcasters v/ere still in for something was strengthened by Senator George of Georgia, Chairman of the Senate Committee, saying that the senators had not given up the idea of taxing radio stations and the Treasury Department and the Joint Sub-Committee on Revenue taxation had been requested to study some sort of a franchise tax. The idea of such a tax would be to raise approximately „ 2, 000, 000, enough to pay for the operating expenses of the Federal Coi.imuni c at i on s C oimni s s i on , In addition to eliminating the tax on .broadcast time the Senate Committee also threw out the proposed tax in billboard adver¬ tising, Approved without change v/as the House schedule which doubled the excise tax on radio sets. On long-distance telephone calls, telegrams, radiograms and cables, the Senate Committee levied a flat 10 per cent tax. The House bill j^rovided a 5-cent tax on messages and conversations costing betv/een 24 and 50 cents, end 5 cents per 50-cents charge above 50 cents. The Senate coimnittee approved the House tax of 5 per cent oi all telephone bills. It voted a tax of 10 per cent on leased wire talking circuits; and it voted to exempt leased wires and general tlclnr circuits and burglar alarm systems from the tax on communications. It was very apparent to those who attended the Senate Finance Coininittee hearing the day the radio industry presented its case, that sovae senators were not enthusiastic about the broadcast time-sales tax. Although it is believed there must have been some previous dis¬ cussion between the Senate Committee and the FCC of the aiatter, as it is known their experts had been conferring, the first public discussion of a franchise tax was when Chairman James L, Fly, of the Communica¬ tions Commission, appeared before the senate Conmittee as a witness. Senator Vandenberg asked Hr, Fly if he v/as opposed to the tax on radio time sales. "I think it is a pretty dubious tax,” Chairman Fly replied. It was then that Hr, Fly expressed a preference for a fran¬ chise tax, but said he believed it should be borne by tl:ie other bran¬ ches of the comraunications industry telephone, telegraph and cable. 2