a month. However, in the last 6 months, there were 1,500 cases that came in. I think it runs to around 4,000 that are coming in now. Mr. FITZPATRICK. Those new cases that are coming in, are they cases where people are making applications or petitions stating that they have overpaid their income tax, or are they cases where the Government says that they have not paid enough? Judge MURDOCK. They are all cases, they have to be cases, where the Government has held that they have not paid enough. because we do not have any jurisdiction of refunds. It has to be a case where the Government says that you owe some more money than you have paid. If you say that you have paid more money than you owe, you would have to go to a district court or to a court of claims to sue for that. Mr. FIZгATRICK. You do not handle that kind of case? Judge MURDOCK. No. TRANSFER OF PROCESSING TAX BOARD OF REVIEW CASES TO THE TAX COURT There is one other thing I would like to mention. The Congress at the last session discontinued the Processing Tax Board. That was not done through any request of ours. We did not have anything to do with it, but we were asked simply if we could handle the work and we said yes. They transferred that work to us, Now, we are not asking for any increase in our appropriation on that account, but I call your attention to the fact, because we took that work over approximately $63,000 of their last year's budget has been returned. Their appropriation for expenses was $106,000. So that by our taking over that work, that will be eliminated. I hope that we will not have to have any additional amount to take care of it. I am not quite sure, because when we get into the trial of some of these processing tax cases we may need some technical assistance in the way of accountants. But I am not asking for it until I find out whether it will be necessary. I am hoping that we will not have to do it. NUMBER OF PERSONNEL Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The Budget break-down seems to indicate an increase on account of personnel in the amount of about $10,000. Do I understand you to say that that is inaccurate, and that you are not asking for any increase on account of personnel? Mr. TRACY. There are included in these 1944 figures all of the automatic increases that will take place during 1943, which will be reflected in 1944. But we are not asking for any additional people. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The number of man-years shown for 1944 is 139 as compared with 137.7-whatever that means-in 1943, and that increase of $10,000. Mr. TRACY. We allowed during this year for vacancies, the nonfilling of vacancies, for certain months of certain employees. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What is the total personnel you are asking for? Mr. TRACY. One hundred and thirty-nine. Judge MURDOCK. Including the judges. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. And you have had 129 employees for some time? Mr. TRACY. We were allowed 139 for this year. Judge MURDOCK. We have not been able to fill certain vacancies which may account for some of that. (The following statement was later supplied by Judge Murdock:) The column of our green budget sheets headed "Estimated 1943" was prepared about July 1942, at which time we foresaw that certain of the positions for which appropriation had been made would not be filled as of July 1, 1942, but would probably be filled at various times thereafter. This will explain why we estimated 137.7 judges and employees as drawing pay during the fiscal year. The next column "Estimated 1944" had to be on a full fiscal year basis, as we had no way of forecasting a year in advance just what positions might be open as of July 1, 1943. Therefore, a full-time estimate of 139 judges and employees covering the entire fiscal year 1944 was submitted. The difference between the two columns amounts to $9,788, so that if the vacancies shown in the 1942 column had been filled as of July 1, 1942, the total sums for the two columns would have been approximately the same. PRINTING AND BINDING INCREASE Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I note in your justification with reference to printing and binding that you say this increase may not fully develop until later; that is not required immediately? Judge MURDOCK. Well, no. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You are not sure that it will be required? Judge MURDOCK. I think it will be required, but I am not sure; that is right. TRAVEL AND COMMUNICATION Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Your travel and ocmmunications are running along just about the same each year. In fact, communications shows a little increase despite the decentralization that you have referred to. Would not that decentralization result in cutting down on the travel item and perhaps also on the communications item? Judge MURDOCK. That decentralization took place, as far as we are concerned, 10 years ago. We have been hearing cases all over the United States for at least 10 years. Our travel has been pretty uniform during all of that period, because we have to go to about 50 different cities and hold about 100 different calendars in a year. That has been true for some time. The Bureau of Internal Revenue decentralized a few years ago but that had no effect upon us. Before that we had their representaNow they are there tives out with us. They sent them out with us. when we get there; that is the only difference. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Mr. WIGGLES WORTH. What is included in the item, "Other contractual services"? Mr. TRACY. Primarily, the cost of stenographically reporting our hearings, all over the country. Each year we solicit bids for this work and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. There are other small items for light and telephone service in New York, the rented quarters, and for telephone service in our Chicago quarters. There we have a courtroom, a retiring room, and a clerk's office in a Government-owned building which we occupy from time to time, as needed. This space is available to the Court of Claims and other governmental agencies, when not required for our use. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You do not think there is any other space you could get in New York in federally owned property for this purpose? Judge MURDOCK. No; I do not think there is. When we got this space we had to go through the W. P. B. to have the space approved and at that time we made every effort to find some other place. We were entirely satisfied with the space we had but there was no alternative but to move and rent space. We did not like to move out of the Federal courthouse; we were happy there and would have liked to have stayed but we could not and we had to find other space. Space in New York was at a premium and I understand that condition still exists. Mr. FITZPATRICK. This is on Forty-fourth Street; an old building? Judge MURDOCK. Yes; but it is a very nice building. AMOUNT OF DEFICIENCIES INVOLVED IN PENDING CASES Mr. DIRKSEN. Judge Murdock, what is the amount involved in the 5,000 pending cases? Judge MURDOCK. I can give you a general statement from the beginning, including that figure. These figures show the number of proceedings docketed since the beginning of this organization, totaling 117,274. The gross deficiences claimed by the Commissioner were $3,328,000,000. The proceedings closed up during that time up to the end of the year, were 108,255, and the gross deficiencies involved in those cases was approximately $3,005,000,000. The proceedings pending were, as I indicated, 5,119. The gross deficiencies involved in these pending proceedings, and this is in answer to your specific question, are $322,833,000 plus. PROMOTIONS Mr. DIRKSEN. Do you contemplate making any promotions other than the automatic promotions under the Ramspeck Act? Judge MURDOCK. No; I do not. That is, with the exception of one or two where we take in some young men, two or three young men as law clerks for the members, for the judges, and after they have been with us for some time and merit promotions, we make promotions under which they may get a promotion of $400 or $500. Mr. DIRKSEN. Your net estimate for 1943 instead of being $556,000 will be that much, plus $32,000. Judge MURDOCK. Whatever is being done about this being included in the bill; yes. Mr. DIRKSEN. That is right. Judge MURDOCK. I had a notion, and I think Mr. Tracy told me, it would not come through the Budget, that there would be some overall provision covering that which I do not know about myself. WEEKLY WORK HOURS OF PERSONNEL Mr. CASE. How does it come that you are on a 44-hour basis if the courts are not? Judge MURDOCK. I do not know whether the courts are on a 44-hour basis or not. Before all of this excitement started we were on a 39-hour 81710-43-2 basis, and I think in January of this last year, at the request of the Bureau of the Budget, we went on a 44-hour week, and then we were put automatically on a 48-hour week by the Executive order of the President which came out here recently. Mr. CASE. You do not know why you were not put on the same basis as the court? Judge MURDOCK. Yes, I do know, because of the provision in the law that this overtime shall not apply to the judicial and legislative branches, and we were and still are in the executive branch. And so far as that is concerned, the Congress did not change that when it changed us to The Tax Court of the United States. Mr. CASE. Will that operate to deny this request that you make reference to? Judge MURDOCK. I have a notion that the Director of the Budget may have the authority to grant this; I think there is something in the bill providing that he can make some exception if he wants to, and it seems to me that it would be advisable, if he thought so; Í never have asked him but I am going to ask him. Mr. CASE. My point is whether or not there was any legislative authority needed to put you on the same basis as the courts. Judge MURDOCK. I am not sure whether he could do this under the act or not, but I am going to ask him. Mr. CASE. And will you let us know. Judge MURDOCK. Yes. Mr. WOODRUM. Let us know the outcome of that inquiry and if it is found the Budget cannot do it, it may be the committee can help you. Judge MURDOCK. I have taken a good deal of pains to explain to him that it would be advisable, at least desirable, for the same reasons that apply to the courts. Mr. WOODRUM. How would it affect the amount of money involved? FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 1943. THE ALLEY DWELLING AUTHORITY STATEMENTS OF JOHN IHLDER, EXECUTIVE OFFICER; DANIEL N. MANDELL, CHIEF, FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICE; AND OMAR T. BURLESON, ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF PROPERTY UNDER TITLE I Mr. WOODRUM. We have before us the item for the Alley Dwelling Authority. Mr. Ihlder, do you have a general statement? Mr. IHLDER. We have only one item that is before you, I believe, this morning and that is the appropriation of $12,000 for the administration of title I property. Mr. WOODRUM. Yes. Mr. IHLDER. That money, of course, is necessary, plus something, in order to maintain properties that we are managing under this title. Mr. WOODRUM. Briefly what is title I? Mr. IHLDER. Title I is the original Alley Dwelling Act, by which we were given an appropriation by Congress and sums allocated, which we treat as loans to be repaid with interest. With that money we reclaimed certain slum areas and put on them properties that are self-sustaining. Up to last June 30, our receipts went into a reserve fund which we could use for the maintenance of property, for repairs, and for administration. The method of operation up to that time was that we should pay all our expenses and in the end come out even, with no deficit, that is, with assets equal to the cost of operation. But Congress last year, as of June 30, took over the reserve and instead gave us $12,000. The Bureau of the Budget has again recommended $12,000 as being indicative of the intent of Congress, but recognized that is not sufficient even to maintain the property and for that reason this language was put in under which we can go to the Bureau of the Budget for a deficiency appropriation. Mr. WOODRUM. That is for the maintenance of the property. Mr. FITZPATRICK. What amount did you turn in? Mr. MANDELL. $101,000. Mr. FITZPATRICK. And instead of taking your operating expenses out of that $101,000 a definite amount was recommended. Mr. MANDELL. Yes. Mr. IHLDER. Up until last June we were self-liquidating. INCREASE IN PERSONNEL Mr. WOODRUM. Do you contemplate any increase in personnel? Mr. IHLDER. NO. The total personnel will probably decrease, with increases at some places and decreases at others. PROMOTIONS Mr. WOODRUM. How about promotions; will there be any, other than the automatic promotions? Mr. IHLDER. No. None is contemplated at the present time in the general work. There will be some promotions that will be due to changes of work, but that is not involved in this item. OVERTIME Mr. WOODRUM. Is overtime involved in the operation of this property? Mr. IHLDER. We are, of course, on a 48-hour week. Mr. WOODRUM. Does the $12,000 include enough money to take of that also? Mr. IHLDER. Not for that item. Mr. WOODRUM. How much will that involve? Mr. MANDELL. We have in the justifications, Mr. Chairman, two tables; the first shows what we will spend in the fiscal year 1943, the estimate being $16,861.80. The table shows first the costs that were incurred to November 30, and the second column shows what it would be for the balance of the year, making up the total of $16,861.80. Mr. WOODRUM. That is what the increase will be? |