TAX ADMINISTRATION

183

point, since the decisions will constitute precedents that
may be applied at a later time.
The trend of developments that resulted in giving practically
 complete control to the State Auditor extended over a
period of twelve years. Even as thus improved the form of
administration is not generally regarded as satisfactory. In
the beginning the enforcement of the law was left to the
local assessors, which meant that the law was subject to as
many interpretations as there were assessors. In 1924 the
State Tax Commission claimed that it had certain authority
in connection with the income tax, particularly to examine
and inspect the returns on file in the assessors’ offices, but
the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the powers of the
Commission relating to general supervision over assessments
did not extend to the income tax and that it had only general
supervision over assessments for property taxes! The effect
of this decision was to preclude the possibility of securing
any increased efficiency through the supervision of the
State Tax Commission or its agents. In 1925 the law was
amended to authorize the State Auditor, agent, or inspector
to examine the income tax returns on file in the office of any
local official.
While some improvements in administration have been
effected by granting additional power to the State Auditor,
the system of local assessment and collection has remained
basically the same. Assessments are made by local assessors,
and the income taxes are collected by local collectors under
the general supervision of the State Auditor, who furnishes
the necessary forms and promulgates regulations concerning
the manner in which the statutes are to be interpreted.
Notwithstanding the control that has been given to the
State Auditor, a system of income tax administration that
involves the degree of decentralization found in Missouri
can hardly be regarded as desirable. In other states decentralization
 has been found wanting in many respects, and
centralization ‘has been established. Missouri is unique
among income tax states in that a decentralized system
has been continued for a considerable period of years? In
t State ex rel. v. Crawford, 303 Mo. 652, 262 5. W. 341.
? For discussion and tabulations of systems of state income tax administration in
income tax states, see National Industrial Conference Board, State Income Taxes,
Vol. 11, pp. 127 ff.