Appendix — First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti

Ee aus

yr ititk DD

—

Am 2 N

APFENDIX

— = an * —

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

Octroszer Term, 1976

No. 76-1172

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON,

NEW ENGLAND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK,

THE GILLETTE COMPANY,

DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION,

and

WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY,

APPELLANTS,

v.

FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

4PPELLEE.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

—=_——————————————

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT DOCKETED FEBRUARY 24, 1977

JURISDICTION POSTPONED APRIL 18, 1977

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Docket Entries * 1

Complaint For Declaratory Judgment 3

Defendant's Answer ve 13

Statement of Agreed Facts 15

Arr xxo To JurispictionaL STATEMENT

Order of the Supreme Judicial Court dated September

22, 1976 5 25

Judgment of the Supreme Judieial Court dated Sep-

tember 28, 1976 .. 27

Opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court dated February

1. 1977 1

2

10.

11.

9

CoMMONWEALTH oF MassacHUSETTS

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

1976

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

Apr.

9

9

12

. 80

DOCKET ENTRIES

Complaint for declaratory judgment filed.

Order of notice issued returnable on Wednes-

day, April 14th at 9:30 A.M. Full Court

Room.

Order of notice returned with service en-

dorsed thereon.

Appearance of Thomas R. Kiley, Asst. Attor-

ney General, 1 Ashburton Place, Boston,

Mass., for the defendant, filed.

Order for completion of pleadings, as on file.

Answer of the Attorney General filed.

Suggested schedule filed.

Statement of Agreed Facts filed.

Reservation and report, as on file.

(Wilkins, J.)

Notice of assembly of record on appeal sent

to Francis H. Fox, Esq., attorney for the

plaintiff and to Thomas R. Kiley, Asst.

Attorney General, attorney for the defend-

ant, by a letter dated and mailed this day.

Motion to Intervene of Coalition for Tax

Reform Inc., and United Peoples, Inc., filed.

(Allowed 5/11/76)

30 Answer of intervening defendants Coalition

For Tax Reform, Inc., and United Peoples,

Ine. filed.

Plaintiffs’ Briefs and Record Appendix filed

by Francis H. Fox (Bingham, Dana &

Gould).

14.

16.

21.

22.

24.

27.

4

2

*

Supplementary Statement of Agreed Facts

filed.

Revised reservation and report filed.

Brief of Intervening Defendants (Coalition

for Tax Reform, Inc. and United Peoples,

Inc.) by Ernest Winsor of the Mass. Law

Reform Institute.

Service of Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief by

E. Susan Garsh (Bingham, Dana & Gould)

Argued.

Order (Full Court—The Single Justice shall

order the entry of an appropriate judgment

declaring that the statute is valid and en-

forceable) as on file.

Motion for entry of judgment filed. (Al-

lowed, Braucher, J.)

Judgment, as on file.

Notice of Appeal by E. Susan Garsh (Bing-

ham, Dana & Gould)

Motion for Stay or Injunction and Expe-

dited Determination by Bingham, Dana &

Gould (Francis H. Fox and E. Susan Garsh)

ORDER. Upon consideration by the full

court, the plaintiffs’ motion for stay or

injunction is denied.

U.S. Supreme Court Order denying Appli-

cation for a Stay.

See order entered on September 22, 1976.

Reseript February 1, 1977.

Rescript. Reasons as on file. Notice sent

to Counsel.

See order entered on September 22, 1976

as per rescript on file.

3

ComMONWEALTH oF Massacnusetts

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

Surrolx County

No. 76-109 Civ

THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOSTON ‘

NEW ENGLAND MERCHANTS NATIONAL BANK,

THE GILLETTE COMPANY,

DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION,

and

WYMAN-GORDON COMPANY,

v

FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI, ATTORNEY GENERAL

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs in the above-entitled suit respectfully represent

that:

1. Plaintiff, The First National Bank of Boston, is a

national banking association, organized and existing under

the laws of the United States with a usual place of business

in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts.

2. Plaintiff, New England Merchants National Bank, is

a national banking association organized and existing under

the laws of the United States with a usual place of business

in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts.

3. Plaintiff, Wyman-Gordon Company (hereinafter

‘“Wyman-Gordon’’), is a corporation duly orgarized and

existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massa-

chusetts with a usual place of business in Worcester, Wor-

cester County, Massachusetts.

4. Plaintiff, The Gillette Company (hereinafter ‘‘Gil-

lette’’), is a corporation duly organized and existing under

the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place

of business in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts.

4

5. Plaintiff, Digital Equipment Corporation (herein-

after Digital’’), is a corporation duly organized and exist-

ing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

with a principal place of business in Maynard, Middlesex

County, Massachusetts.

6. Defendant, Francis X. Bellotti, is the Attorney Gen-

eral of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

7. Plaintiffs, The First National Bank of Boston and

New England Merchants National Bank, will be referred

to hereinafter as ‘‘plaintiff Banks.’’

8. Plaintiff Banks are engaged in Suffolk County in the

business of retail, commercial and other forms of banking

activities. These include, but are not limited to, maintain-

ing savings and checking accounts for the benefit of both

individual and corporate depositors, making loans to indi-

viduals and to corporations, acting as trustee for the bene-

fit of beneficiaries designated by their customers, acting a-

transfer agents for certain publicly held corporations and

performing other services normally associated with the

banking business.

9. Wyman-Gordon is a business corporation engaged in

the business of die forging, utilizing highly sophisticated

metal forming techniques. Wyman-Gordon principally

serves the aircraft and automotive industries. It has plants

in Worcester, Grafton and Millbury, Massachusetts, and

employs approximately 1800 persons in Massachusetts.

10. Gillette is a business corporation engaged in the

development, manufacture and sale of blades and razors,

toiletries and grooming aids, writing instruments and other

consumer products and services. It has plants in South

Boston and Andover, Massachusetts, and, directly and

through subsidiaries, employs approximately 6,000 persons

in Massachusetts.

11. Digital is a business corporation engaged in the de-

sign, manufacture, sales and servicing of computers, com-

puter systems, peripherals and associated comput/r acces-

5

sories and other items and systems using digital techniques.

It operates in a highly competitive market from which such

major and well-established companies as RCA, General

Electric, Singer and Xerox have elected to withdraw within

the past five years. Digital has plants or facilities in Acton,

Leominster, Marlborough, Maynard, Natick, Northboro,

Springfield, Waltham, Westfield, Westminster, West

Springfield, and Worcester, Massachusetts, and employs

approximately 11,500 persons in Massachusetts.

12. There will be submitted to the voters of Massachu-

setts in the general election of November 2, 1976, a refer-

endum proposing to amend the Constitution of the Common-

wealth to grant to the General Court the power and au-

thority to impose a graduated income tax on personal

incomes. A copy of the proposed amendment is appended

hereto and marked A“.

13. Plaintiff Banks believe that the graduated personal

income tax (and thus the proposed Constitutional Amend-

ment) would adversely affect their business and property

in the following ways, among others:

a. it would tend to discourage persuns of high rank-

ing executive and middle management ability from settling,

remaining or working in Massachusetts, thus depriving the

plaintiff Banks of a source of high level executive and

middle management talent;

b. it would promote a tax climate which would be

considered unfavorable by business corporations, thus tend-

ing to discourage businesses from settling or remaining in

Massachusetts, with resultant adverse effects on the Banks’

industrial loans, deposits, and other services;

c. it would tend to shrink the total individual deposits

and the total balance of loans made to individuals; and

d. in various other ways which may be brought out

at trial.

14. Plaintiffs Wyman-Gordon and Digital believe that

the graduated personal income tax (and thus the proposed

Constitutional Amendment) would adversely affect their

business and property in the following ways, among others:

a. it would tend to discourage persons of high rank-

ing executive and middle management ability from settling,

remaining or working in Massachusetts, thus depriving

plaintiffs of a source of high level executive and middle

management talent;

b. it would tend to discourage highly skilled and

trained, and thus highly paid, engineering and technical

specialists from settling, remaining or working in Massa-

chusetts, thus depriving plaintiffs of a source of talent

necessary for them to conduct their business; and

e. in various other ways which may be brought out

at trial.

15. Plaintiff Gillette believes that the graduated per-

sonal income tax (and thus the proposed Constitutional

Amendment) would adversely affect its business and prop-

erty in the following ways, among others:

a. it would tend to discourage persons of high ranking

executive and middle management ability from settling,

remaining or working in Massachusetts, thus depriving

plaintiff of a source of high level executive and middle

management talent;

b. it would tend to discourage highly skilled and

trained, and thus highly paid, engineering and technical

specialists from settling, remaining or working in Massa-

chusetts, thus depriving plaintiff of a source of talent

necessary for it to conduct its business;

c. it would tend to shrink the disposable income of in-

dividuals available for the purchase of consumer products ;

and

d. in various other ways which may be brought out

at trial.

16. Plaintiffs intend to expend moneys to publicize by

newspaper advertisements and other similar methods their

7

contentions with respect to the graduated personal income

tax and the proposed Constitutional Amendment in an

attempt to persuade the voters of Massachusetts to de-

feat the proposed Constitutional Amendment at the gen-

eral election. Plaintiffs, being corporate entities, cannot

communicate their contentions without expending some

monies.

17. General Laws c. 55, §7, prior to an amendment

which became effective on June 20, 1972, provided that

no business or banking corporations, such as plaintiffs

herein, shall directly or indirectly expend any monies for

the purpose of influencing or affecting the vote on any

question submitted to the voters, other than with respect

to a question materially affecting any of the property,

business or assets of the corporation. A copy of the said

statute as it existed prior to the 1972 amendment is ap-

pended hereto and marked ‘‘B’’.

18. In a prior action, Lustwerk v. Lytron, Inc., 344

Mass. 647, this Court held that a proposed amendment to

the Massachusetts Constitution allowing the legislature

to impose a proportioned or graduated tax on incomes

was a question submitted to the voters . . . materially

affecting any of the property, business or assets of the

corporation“ within the meaning of General Laws e. 55, §7.

19. By Chapter 458 of the Acts of 1972, effective June

20, 1972, the General Court amended General Laws c. 55,

§7, by inserting, after the first sentence of said section,

the following sentence:

No question submitted to the voters concerning the

taxation of the income, property or transactions of

individuals shall be deemed materially to affect the

property, business or assets of the corporation.

20. In a prior action, The First National Bank of Boston

v. Attorney General, 362 Mass. 570, two members of this

Court held e. 55, 67, as amended, to be unconstitutional and

three members of this Court held that the statute did not

prohibit plaintiffs from making expenditures for the pur-

pose of affecting the vote on a referendum question con-

cerning the adoption of a constitutional amendment allow-

ing the legislature to impose a graduated income tax on

individuals and corporations.

21. By Chapter 151 of the Acts of 1975, effective April

28, 1975, the General Court has amended General Laws

by striking out c. 55 and inserting in its place a new c. 55.

Chapter 55, §8, is identical to the predecessor c. 55, 67, as

amended, except for the insertion in the second sentence of

the word ‘‘solely’’ so that it reads as fo!lows:

No question submitted to the voters solely concern-

ing the taxation of the income, property or trans-

actions of individuals shall be deemed materially to

affect the property, business or assets of the corpora-

tion.

22. Plaintiffs allege that General Laws c. 55, §8, is

invalid and unconstitutional both on its face and as applied

to plaintiffs, who intend to expend monies to influence

the voters, as more particularly set forth in Paragraph 16

herein. The statute violates the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and

various provisions of the Constitution of the Common-

wealth, including Articles I, VII, XVI and XTX of the

Declaration of Rights, and Article LXXVII of the Articles

of Amendment. The said statute is not a reasonable and

proper exercise of the police power under Part IT, Ch. I, §1,

Art. IV of the Constitution of the Commonwealth; it

abridges plaintiffs’ rights and privileges of freedom of

speech and freedom of the press, and their rights of assem-

bly and petition; it denies plaintiffs equal protection of

the laws; it imposes arbitrary, unreasonable, diserimin-

atory, vague and indefinite standards and restrictions

upon plaintiffs’ activities; and it deprives plaintiffs of

their liberty and property without due process of law; all

as guaranteed by both the Federal and State Constitutions.

23. Plaintiffs have communicated to defendant their

beliefs that said statute is invalid and unconstitutional.

Defendant, however, contends that the said statute is

valid and binding and defendant intends to enforce the

same. Should plaintiffs expend monies, as set forth in

Paragraph 16 herein, defendant intends to prosecute them

and enforce the statute as written. Plaintiffs would there-

fore act at their peril in carrying out their intentions to

expend monies as aforesaid.

24. An actual controversy exists between each of plain-

tiffs and defendant.

Wuererore, plaintiffs respectfully pray:

1. That the Court order a speedy completion of plead-

I ;

1 That the Court assign the case for an immediate

trial;

3. That the Court declare, pursuant to General Laws

e. 231A, that General Laws c. 55, 8, is unconstitutional

and invalid on its face ;

4. That the Court declare, pursuant to General Laws

c. 231A, that General Laws c. 55, 68, is unconstitutional as

applied to plaintiffs herein ;

5. For such other and further relief as the Court may

deem meet and proper in the circumstances.

By their attorneys,

/s/Fraxcts H. Fox

Francis H. Fox

Jus P. Monate

Jvetm P. Monn rate

FE. Svsas Gwen

E. Susan Gen

RBixanau, Daxa & Govip

100 Federal Street

Boston, MA 02110

Tel. No. (617) 357-9300

Filed April 12, 1976

10

=o

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-five

ProposaL ror a LecisLative AMENDMENT To THE ConsTITU-

tion AuTHoRIzING THE General Covet To Impose aND

Levy a Grapvatrep Tax on Persona Income axp To

Base Svcn Tax Urox rue Fepverat Income Tax.

A majority of all the members elected to the Senate and

House of Representatives, in joint session, hereby declares

it to be expedient to alter the Constitution by the adoption

of the following Article of Amendment, to the end that it

may become a part of the Constitution [if similarly agreed

to in a joint session of the next General Court and approved

by the people at the state election next following] :

ARTICLE OF AMENDMENT

Aer. . Asan alternative to levying a tax on incomes

in the manner provided in Article XLIV of the Amend-

ments to the Constitution, the General Court shall have

full power and authority to levy a tax on personal incomes

at rates which are graduated according to the total amount

of income received, regardless of the sources from which it

may be derived, and to grant reasonable exemptions, deduc-

tions, eredits and abatements to such tax. Further, the

General Court may define the tax liability or the total in-

come upon which such tax is levied or the graduated rates

at which it is taxed by reference to any provision of the

laws of the United States as the same may be or become

effective at any time or from time to time and may pre-

scribe reasonable exceptions to and modifications of such

provision.

Ix Jer Sessiox, August 15, 1973.

The foregoing legislative amendment of the Constitution

ix agreed to in joint session of the two houses of the Gen-

11

eral Court, said amendment having received the affirmative

votes of a majority of all the members elected; and it is

referred to the next General Court in accordance with a

provision of the Constitution.

(s) (Ilegible)

Clerk of the Joint Session.

Ix Joust Session May 7, 1975

The foregoing legislative amendment is agreed to in joint

session of the two houses of the General Court, said amend-

ment having received the affirmative votes of a majority of

all the members elected ; and this fact is hereby certified to

the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in accordance with a

provision of the Constitution.

(s) Epwarp B. O NIA

Clerk of the Joint Session.

Secretary or State

May 29 11:12 AM 75

ELECTION DIVISION

QUESTION 2

The proposed amendment would authorize, but not re-

quire, the Legislature to modify the personal income tax

laws of Massachusetts by the use of graduated rates

instead of the present flat or uniform rates. The graduated

rates would be based on the total amount of income re-

ceived, without distinguishing between earned and un-

earned income. The Legislature would also be authorized

to provide for reasonable exemptions, deductions and

abatements and could base any such graduated income tax

provision on provisions of Federal income tax law.

5

C. 55, 67 AxxOTA TED Laws or Massacnvuserts

§7. Political Contributions by Corporations, and Solicit-

ing or Receiving Such Contributions, Penalized.

No corporation carrying on the business of a bank,

12

trust, surety, indemnity, safe deposit, insurance railroad,

street railway, telegraph, telephone, gas, electric light,

heat, power, canal, aqueduct, or water company, no com-

pany having the right to take land by eminent domain or

to exercise franchises in public ways, granted by the com-

monwealth or by any country, city or town, no trustee or

trustees owning or holding the majority of the stock of such

a corporation, no business corporation incorporated under

the laws of or doing business in the commonwealth and no

officer or agent acting in behalf of any corporation men-

tioned in this section, shall directly or indirectly give, pay,

expend or contribute or promise to give, pay, expend or

contribute, any money or other valuable thing for the

purpose of aiding, promoting or preventing the nomination

or election of any person to public office, or aiding, pro-

moting or antagonizing the interests of any political party,

or influencing or affecting the vote on any question sub-

mitted to the voters, other than one materially affeeting any

of the property, business or assets of the corporation. No

person or persons, no political committee, and no person

acting under the authority of a political committee, or in

its behalf, shall solicit or receive from such corporation or

such holders of stock any gift, payment, expenditure, con-

tribution or promise to give, pay, expend or contribute

for any such purpose.

Any corporation violating any provision of this section

shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand

dollars, and any officer, director or agent of a corporation

violating any provision thereof or authorizing such viola-

tion, or any person who violates or in any way knowingly

aids or abets the violation of any provision thereof, shall

be punished by a fine of not more than five thousand dol-

lars or by imprisonement for not more than six months.

(1907, 576, §22; 1907, 581, 443, 4; 1908, 483, 661, 2; 1911, 422;

1912, 229, 661. 2; 1913, 835, we 356, 496, 499, 503; 1938,

75; 1943, 273, §1; 1946, 537, §10.

13

CoMMONWEALTH oF MassacHUSETTS

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

(Title omitted in printing)

ANSWER

The Attorney General answers the correspondingly

numbered paragraphs of the Bill of Complaint as follows:

1-11. The Attorney General admits the allegations con-

tained in paragraphs one through eleven of the Bill of

Complaint.

12. The Attorney General denies the allegations in para-

graph twelve of the Bill of Complaint. Further answering

the Attorney General states that on November 2, 1976 a

proposed legislative amendment to the Constitution of the

Commonwealth which would grant to the General Court

the power to impose a graduated income tax solely on

personal incomes will be submitted to the voters of Mas-

sachusetts. The defendant admits that the text of the

proposed amendment is appended to the Bill of Complaint

but further states that only a summary of the amendment

will appear on the ballot. A copy of the summary in its

current form is appended hereto and marked A“.

13-15. The Attorney General denies the allegations con-

tained in paragraphs thirteen through fifteen of the Bill

of Complaint.

16. The Attorney General admits the allegations of the

first sentence of paragraph sixteen of the Bill of Com-

plaint but denies the allegations of the remaining sen-

tence of that paragraph.

17-21. The Attorney General admits the allegations con-

tained in paragraphs seventeen through twenty-one of the

Bill of Complaint.

22. The Attorney General states that paragraph twenty-

two of the Bill of Complaint contains only allegations or

14

conclusions of law which need not be answered. The

Attorney General denies any statement in paragraph

twenty-two containing an allegation of material fact. '

23. The Attorney General denies the allegations in the

first sentence of paragraph twenty-three but admits the

allegations of material fact contained in the remaining

sentences, Further answering the Attorney General states

that he has communicated with counsel of record for the

Plaintiffs and been informed of the ‘‘beliefs’’ of the plain-

tiff corporations and/or the beliefs of their corporate

officers.

24. The Attorney General denies the allegations con-

tained in paragraph twenty-four of the Bill of Complaint.

By way of further answer to the Bill of Complaint the

Attorney General affirmatively alleges as follows:

25. A declaration that the second sentence of General

Laws, c. 55, §8 as amended is unconstitutional on its face

or as applied would not fully and finally terminate any

actual controversy between the parties.

26. General Laws, c. 55, §8 as most recently amended

by St. 1975 c. 151 is neither unconstitutional on its face

nor as applied to any of the Plaintiffs herein.

Wuererore, the Attorney General respectfully prays:

1. That the Court decline to render a declaratory judg-

ment pursuant to G.L. c. 231A.

2. That the Court, acting pursuant to G.L. c. 231A,

declare that G.L. c. 55, §8 as amended by St. 1975, e. 151

is a valid and binding enactment.

3. For such other and further relief as the Court may

deem meet and just.

By his attorney,

Francis X. BeLvorti

by

Tuomas R. Kitey

Assistant Attorney General

McCormack Office Building

Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Dated April 20, 1976

15

CoMMONWEALTH OF MassaCHUSETTS

SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

(Title omitted in printing)

STATEMENT OF AGREED FACTS

Note: Plaintiff The First National Bank of Boston will be referred

to herein as ‘‘First National’’; plaintiff New England Merchants

National Bank will be referred to herein as ‘‘ Mere ; plaintiff

Wyman-Gordon 41 will be referred to herein as n-

Gordon’’; plaintiff The Gillette Company will be referred to herein

as Gillette; and plaintiff Digital Equipment Corporation will

be referred to herein as Digital

1. Plaintiff First National is a national banking asso-

ciation, organized and existing under the laws of the United

States with a usual place of business in Boston, Suffolk

County, Massachusetts.

2. Plaintiff Merchants is a natonal banking associa-

tion, organized and existing under the laws of the United

States with a usual place of business in Boston, Suffolk

County, Massachusetts.

3. Plaintiff Wsman-Gordon is a corporation duly orga-

nized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts with a usual place of business in Worcester,

Worcester County, Massachusetts.

4. Plaintiff Gillette is a corporation duly organized and

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a

principal place of business in Boston, Suffolk County,

Massachusetts.

5. Plaintiff Digital is a corporation duly organized and

existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massa-

chusetts with a principal place of business in Maynard,

Middlesex County, Massachusetts.

6. Defendant Francis X. Bellotti is the Attorney Gen-

eral of the Commonwealth.

16

7. Plaintiff Banks are engaged in the County of Suffolk

in the business of retail, commercial and other forms of

banking activities. These include, but are not limited to,

maintaining savings and checking accounts for the benefit

of both individual and corporate depositors, making loans

to individuals and to corporations, acting as trustee for the

benefit of beneficiaries designated by their customers, act-

ing at transfer agent for certain publicly held coropora-

tions and performing other services normally associated

with the banking business.

8. Wyman-Gordon is a business corporation engaged in

the business of die forging, utilizing highly sophisticated

metal forming techniques. Wyman-Gordon principally

serves the aircraft and turbine engine industries. It has

plants in Worcester, Grafton and Millbury, Massachusetts,

and employs approximately 1,700 persons in Massachusetts.

9. Gillette is a business corporation engaged in the de-

velopment, manufacture and sale of blades, razors, toil-

etries, grooming aids, writing instruments and other con-

sumer products and service. It has plants in South Boston

and Andover, Massachusetts, and employs approximately

6,000 persons in Massachusetts.

10. Digital is a business corporation engaged in the

design, manufacture, sales and servicing of computers,

computer systems, peripherals and associated computer

accessories and other items and systems using digital tech-

niques. It operates in a highly competitive market from

which such major and well-established companies as RCA,

General Electric, Singer and Xerox have elected to with-

draw within the past five years. Digital has plants in Acton,

Leominster, Marlborough, Maynard, Natick, Northboro,

Springfield, Waltham, Westfield, Westminster, West

Springfield, and Worcester, Massachusetts, and employs

approximately 11,500 persons in Massachusetts.

11. There will be submitted to the voters of Massachu-

17

setts in the general election of November 2, 1976, a legisla-

tive amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth

proposing to grant to the General Court the power and

authority to impose a graduated income tax on personal

incomes. The proposed legislative amendment neither im-

poses nor requires the imposition of a graduated income

tax on individuals and does not purport to authorize the

imposition of graduated taxes upon corporate income. A

copy of the proposed amendment is appended hereto and

marked A“. A copy of the Summary which will appear on

the ballot is appended hereto and marked B'“.

12. There is a division of opinion among economists as

to whether and to what extent a graduated income tax im-

posed solely on individuals would affect the business and

assets of corporations.

13. It is the position of the management of plaintiffs

that a graduated income tax (and thus the proposed Con-

stitutional Amendment) would adversely affect their busi-

ness and property. None of the plaintiffs have communica-

ted with their shareholders on this matter except as is

stated in Paragraph 63.

14. It is the position of the management of plaintiff

Banks that one way in which the graduated income tax

would adversely affect their business and property is by

discouraging persons of high ranking executive and middle

management ability from settling, remaining, or working

in Massachusetts, thus depriving the Banks of a source of

high level executive and middle management talent.

15. As of April 13, 1976, there were 550 employees of

First National earning $20,000 or more annually. Of these

there are 207 employees earning $20,000 to $24,999, 96 em-

ployees earning $25,000 to $29,999, 137 employees earning

£30,000 to $59,999 ard 10 employees earning $60,000 to

$191,000.

16. As of April 12, 1976, there were 175 employees of

18

Merchants earning $20,000 or more annually. Of these

there are 134 employees earning $20,000 to $30,000, 33 em-

ployees earning $30,000 to $40,000 and eight employees

earning $40,000 to $140,000.

17. It is the position of the management of plaintiff

Banks that the graduated income tax would adversely af-

fect their business and property by tending to reduce the

total balance of individual checking and savings account

deposits. As of April 13, 1976, First National had approx-

imately :

126,000 individual checking

accounts with an approximate

balance of $146,000,000

and

137,000 individual savings

accounts with an approximate

balance of $206,000,000

As of April 12, 1976, Merchants had approximately:

74,000 personal demand deposits

with an approximate balance

of $ 53,500,000

and

83,000 individual savings

accounts with an approximate

balance of $137,700,000

18. It is the position of the management of plaintiff

Banks that the graduated income tax would adversely af-

fect their business and property by producing an adverse

effect on the total of individual loans made by the Banks.

19. First National had approximately 209,000 individ-

ual loans outstanding with an approximate balance of

$227,139,000, as of April 13, 1976.

20. Merchants had approximately 77,000 personal loans

outstanding, with an approximate balance of $73,000,000,

as of April 12, 1976.

19

21. It is the position of the management of plaintiff

Banks that the graduated income tax would adversely af-

fect their business and property by tending to discourage

business from settling or remaining in Massachusetts, with

resultant adverse effects on the Banks’ industrial loans,

deposits, and other services.

22. First National had approximately 6,000 industrial

and corporate loans outstanding, with an approximate bal-

lance of $1,872,000,000, as of April 13, 1976.

23. Merchants had commercial loans outstanding with

an approximate balance of $569,300,000 as of April 12, 1976.

24. First National had approximately 29,000 industrial

and commercial deposits accounts, with an approximate

balance of $897,000,000 as of April 13, 1976.

25. Merchants had approximately 14,000 commercial de-

posit accounts with an approximate balance of $358,889,000

as of April 12, 1976.

26. Plaintiff Banks maintain their headquarters in Suf-

folk County, Massachusetts. They have no branch offices

in any other state, or in any Massachusetts county other

than Suffolk.

27. In 1972, First National expended or contributed

$3,000 to oppose a proposed amendment to the Massachu-

setts Constitution which would have authorized the impo-

sition of a graduated income tax.

28. In 1972, Merchants expended or contributed $3,000

to oppose a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts

Constitution which would have authorized the imposition of

a graduated income tax.

29. It is the position of the management of Wyman-

Gordon that the graduated income tax (and thus the pro-

posed Constitutional Amendment) would adversely affect

its business and property in the following ways, among

others:

a. it would tend to discourage persons of high rank-

ing executive ability from settling or remaining in

Massachusetts, thus depriving Wyman-Gordon of

a source of high level executive talent, and

b. it would tend to discourage highly skilled and

trained, and thus highly paid, engineering and

technical specialists from settling in or remaining

in Massachusetts, thus depriving Wyman-Gordon

of a source of talent necessary for it to conduct

its business.

30. Wyman-Gordon’s total number of employees at its

Massachusetts plants varies through the years, but remains

approximately in the 1,700-2,000 range. The total payroll

for these employees annualized from April 13, 1976, is

approximately $27,000,000.

31. As of April 13, 1976, there were presently 206 em-

ployees of Wyman-Gordon earning $20,000 or more. Of

these there were 133 junior executives and technicians earn-

ing $20,000 to $25,000, 36 executive and technical personnel

earning $25,000 to $30,000, and 37 executives earning

$30,000 or more. The highest salary paid is $130,000.

32. In 1972, Wyman-Gordon expended or contributed

$3,000 to oppose a proposed amendment to the Massachu-

setts Constitution which would have authorized the impo-

sition of a graduated income tax.

33. It is the position of the management of Gillete that

the graduated income tax (and thus the proposed Constitu-

tional Amendment) would adversely affect its business and

property by tending to discourage persons of high ranking

executive and middle management ability from settling or

remaining in Massachusetts, thus depriving Gillette of a

source of high level executive and middle management

talent, and by tending to shrink disposable income of indi-

viduals available for the purchase of consumer products.

34. Gillette’s total number of Massachusetts employees

21

is approximately 6,000 and the total annual payroll for

these employees was approximately $73,800,000 in calendar

year 1974, out of a total United States payroll of

$108,200,000.

35. As of April 16, 1976, there were 857 employees at

Gillette earning $20,000 or more. Of these there are 574

employees earning $20,000 to $30,000, 226 employees earn-

ing $30,000 to $50,000, and 57 employees earning more than

$50,000.

36. Gillette’s net sales in Massachusetts during the

calendar year 1974 were $39,600,000, as against total net

sales of $517,700,000 in the United States for the same

period.

37. Gillette owned tangible property in Massachusetts

worth $30,000,000 in 1974 and leasehold improvements in

Massachusetts worth $1,500,000 in calendar year 1974.

38. In 1972 Gillette expended or contributed $3,000 to

oppose a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts Con-

stitution which would have authorized the imposition of a

graduated income tax.

39. It is the position of the mangement of Digital that

the graduated i: ome tax (and thus the proposed Constitu-

tional Amendment) would adversely affect its business and

property in the following ways, among others:

a. it would impair Digital’s ability to attract execu-

tive, technical and other skilled professional people

to Massachusetts, and

b. the number of Massachusetts-based employees

wishing to relocate to Digital facilities in New

Hampshire, Arizona and elsewhere would increase.

40. Digital’s total number of Massachusetts employees

as of April 15, 1976, was 11,500. The total annual payroll

for these employees for calendar year 1975 was approxi-

mately $131,000,000.

41. As of April 15, 1976, there were 1,207 employees at

Digital earning $20,000 or more. Of these there were 1,054

employees earning between $20,000 and $30,000, 142 em-

ployees earning between $30,000 and $50,000, and 11 em-

ployees earning over $50,000.

42. Digital’s net sales of products and services to cus-

tomers in Massachusetts for calendar 1975 was $27,300,000.

43. In 1972, Digital expended or contributed no monies

to oppose a proposed amendment to the Massachusetts

Constitution which would have authorized the imposition of

a graduated income tax.

44. Plaintiffs intended to expend monies to publicize by

paid advertisements in newspapers and other media their

contentions with respect to the graduated income tax and

the proposed Constitutional Amendment in an attempt to

persuade the voters of Massachusetts to defeat the pro-

posed Constitutional Amendment at the general election.

45. First National desires to, and but for G.L. e. 55 §8

would, place messages in its own in-house monthly news-

paper called About the First. The purpose of such mes-

sages would be to attempt to persuade its own employees

to vote against the proposed Constitutional Amendment.

This publication is printed by First National solely for

its own employees and is mailed to approximately 5,300

employees at their home addresses. Space in the said news-

paper is a thing of some value, and it costs money to

publish this paper. However, First National has not and

will not place such messages in the paper out of respect

for the law and for fear of criminal prosecution for viola-

tion of the statute. The Attorney General has not indicated

that he will prosecute First National for placing such

messages in its own in-house newspaper.

46. First National employs four professional economists

who frequently comment publicly on economic conditions

in Massachusetts, and would, but for G.L. e. 55 §8, com-

ment publiely on the effect a graduated income tax would

have on the Massachusetts economy. The Attorney General

has not indicated that he will prosecute First National or

the professional economists if the professional economists

make such public comments.

47. Wyman-Gordon desires to, and but for G.L. c. 55 68

would, express its views on the proposed Constitutional

Amendment in its internal newsletter Information for

Management’’ distributed to 275 monthly-paid employees.

It costs money to print this newsletter, and Wyman-Gordon

has not and will not express its views on this matter in

said newsletter out of respect for the law and for fear of

criminal prosecution for violation of the statute. The

Attorney General has not indicated that he will prosecute

Wyman-Gordon for placing such messages in its own in-

house newsletter.

48. Gillette desires to, and but for G.L. c. 55, §8 would,

express its views on the proposed Constitutional Amend-

ment to its employees through its ‘‘Gillette Company News-

letter and other internal bulletins. It costs money to

print and deliver these publications, and Gillette will not

express its views on this matter in said publications out

of respect for the law and for fear of criminal prosecution

for violation of the statute. The Attorney General has not

indicated that he will prosecute Gillette for placing such

messages in its own internal publications.

49. Digital desires to, and but for G.L. c. 55 §8 would,

express its views on the ,roposed Constitutional Amend-

ment to its employees through ‘‘ Digital This Week’’, an

internal newsletter distributed weekly to employees, and

through On Line“, a quarterly magazine mailed to em-

ployees at their home addresses. It costs money to print

and distribute these publications, and Digital will not

express its views on this matter in said publications out

of respect for the law and for fear of criminal prosecution

for violation of the statute. The Attorney General has not

indicated that he will prosecute Digital for placing such

messages in its own internal publications.

50. There is appended hereto a two-page document

marked C“. The said document lists certain Real Estate

Investment Trusts which are organized under the laws

of Massachusetts, and sets forth certain financial and other

information concerning these trusts.

51. The total assets of the Real Estate Investment

Trusts shown on Exhibit C' are approximately

$5,458,901 ,000.

52. The total ‘‘Gross Income’’ for the said trusts is

approximately $402,829,000. This is an annual gross income

figure which reflects the latest reported accounting of the

varied fiseal years of each of the REITS on the list.

53. There are many other business trusts organized

under the laws of Massachusetts, although no income or

asset statistics on said business trusts are readily available

to the parties. The Massachusetts Secretary of State's

records show 7,500 Massachusetts business trusts have

filed reports in accordance with G.L. c. 182 §2 as of April

1, 1976.

54. During 1972, the most recent year for which income

statistics are available, the Statistical Abstract of the

United States shows that there are 15,000 Massachusetts

partnerships which earned a total of $1,816,000,000 in busi-

ness receipts.

55. The Department of Labor and Industries, Directo-

ries of Labor Organizations in Massachusetts (1975) lists

2,250 individual local labor organizations in the state with

a membership of 590,625.

56. In a joint session of the two branches held July 2,

1969, the General Court approved a proposed amendment

to the Massachusetts Constitution which purported to

authorize the imposition of a graduated income tax. The

proposed amendment received two hundred four (204)

votes in the affirmative and forty-nine (49) in the negative.

57. In a joint session of the two branches held May 12,

1971, the General Court ap: coved a proposed amendment

to the Massachusetts Constitution which purported to

authorize the imposition of a graduated income tax. The

proposed amendment received two hundred forty-five (245)

votes in the affirmative and twenty (20) in the negative.

58. On November 7, 1972, the proposed amendment to

the Massachusetts Constitution which purported to author-

ize the imposition of a graduated income tax was submitted

to the voters of the Commonwealth at the Biennial State

Election. A total of two million five hundred three thousand

four hundred ninety-four (2,503,494) ballots were cast at

that election. Three hundred thirty-five thousand eight

hundred twenty-five (335,825) blank ballots were recorded

on the graduated income tax amendment. The proposed

amendment was rejected by the voters. It received one mil-

lion four hundred fifty-five thousand six hundred thirty-

nine (1,455,639) votes in the negative and seven hundred

twelve thousand and thirty (712,030) votes in the affirma-

tive.

59. On June 6, 1972, the Committee for Jobs and Gov-

ernment Economy was organized as a non-elected political

committee with a purpose of supporting or opposing tax

proposals which would influence the state’s economy. The

Committee for Jobs and Government Economy raised and

expended approximately one hundred twenty thousand dol-

lars ($120,000) in opposition to the proposed graduated

income tax amendment as indicated in copies of the finan-

cial reports filed by the Committee which are appended

hereto and marked D. The Committee for Jobs and

Government Economy was the only duly organized non-

elected political committee to raise and expend money to

oppose the proposed amendment.

60. On September 22, 1972, the Coalition for Tax Re-

form, Inc., was organized as a non-elected political com-

mittee with the stated purpose of promoting passage of

the proposed graduated income tax amendment. The Coali-

tion for Tax Reform, Inc., raised and expended approxi-

mately seven thousand dollars ($7,000) to promote the

proposed amendment, as indicated in copies of the financial

reports filed by the Coalition which are appended hereto

and marked E'. The Coalition for Tax Reform, Ine.,

was the only duly organized political committee to raise

and expend money to promote the proposed amendment.

61. Forty-one (41) states and the District of Columbia

impose income taxes on personal income. Thirty-six (36)

states and tl e District of Columbia have graduated income

taxes.

62. The boards of directors of all of the plaintiff corpo-

rations were notified of the commencement of this action.

The boards of directors of three of the plaintiffs formally

ratified the commencement of the action.

63. At the annual meeting of stockholders of First

National Boston Corporation, which is the parent of the

plaintiff First National, held on March 18, 1976, in response

to a question on the proposed graduated state income tax,

the management of First National responded, in part, that

as presently proposed, its economists feel that a graduated

tax would affect the entire middle-management group and

that it was already hard enough to keep businesses from

moving out of the state. The question and response were

reprinted in the Questions & Answers section of the Sum-

mary Report of the Annual Meeting, which was mailed to

all shareholders.

27

The parties have agreed that the facts recited in the

Statement of Agreed Facts are true. Plaintiffs and the

defendant do not necessarily agree with each other as to

the relevance of each fact. Plaintiffs and the defendant

each reserve the right to argue as to the relevance, or lack

of relevance, of any particular fact set forth herein.

/s/Fraxcis H. Fox

Francois H. Fox

Bixdhau, Dana & G0

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

Francis X. BIA or.

Attorney General

By Tomas R. Kn

Tuomas R. Kur

Assistant Attorney General

28

“A”

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy-five

Proposal ron a LecisLaTive AMENDMENT TO THE CoNnsTITU-

rion AvTHorizinc THE GENERAL Covrt To IMPosE AND

Levy a Grapvuatep Tax on Persona, Income AND To

Base Such Tax Upon true Feperat Income Tax.

A majority of all the members elected to the Senate and

House of Representatives, in joint session, hereby declares

it to be expedient to alter the Constitution by the adoption

of the following Article of Amendment, to the end that it

may become a part of the Constitution [if similarly agreed

to in a joint session of the next General Court and approved

by the people at the state election next following] :

ARTICLE OF AMENDMENT

Arr. . Asan alternative to levying a tax on incomes

in the manner provided in Article XLIV of the Amend-

ments to the Constitution, the General Court shall have

full power and authority to levy a tax on personal incomes

at rates which are graduated according to the total amount

of income received, regardless of the sources from which it

may be derived, and to grant reasonable exemptions, dedue-

tions, credits and abatements to such tax. Further, the

General Court may define the tax liability or the total in-

come upon which such tax is levied or the graduated rates

at which it is taxed by reference to any provision of the

laws of the United States as the same may be or become

effective at any time or from time to time and may pre-

scribe reasonable exceptions to and modifications of such

provision.

Ix Jormvt Session, August 15, 1973.

The foregoing legislative amendment of the Constitution

is agreed to in joint session of the two houses of the Gen-

eral Court, said amendment having received the affirmative

votes of a majority of all the members elected; and it is

referred to the next General Court in accordance with a

provision of the Constitution.

(s) (legible)

Clerk of the Joint Session.

Ix Joint Session, May 7, 1975

The foregoing legislative amendment is agreed to in joint

session of the two houses of the General Court, said amend-

ment having received the affirmative votes of a majority of

all the members elected; and this fact is hereby certified to

the Secretary of the Commonwealth, in accordance with a

provision of the Constitution.

(s) Epwarp B. O' NENI.

Clerk of the Joint Session.

Secretary or Strate

May 29 11:12 AM 75

ELECTION DIVISION

“B”

QUESTION 2

The proposed amendment would authorize, but not re-

quire, the Legislature to modify the personal income tax

laws of Massachusetts by the use of graduated rates

instead of the present flat or uniform rates. The graduated

rates would be based on the total amount of income re-

ceived, without distinguishing between earned and un-

earned income. The Legislature would also be authorized

to provide for reasonable exemptions, deductions and

abatements and could base any such graduated income tax

provision on provisions of Federal income tax law.

30 31

“Q” In designating the appendix the parties have been

P guided by Supreme Court Rule 36(2) and the admonition

20 Lancest Beat Estate ee ee i Mass. of the Court to designate only the most significant portions

— — 1 — — — of the record. The parties have omitted, for instance,

1 Chase Manhattan 1975 $940,643,000. 638,079,000.“ attachments D and E to the Statement of Agreed Facts

> — & Realty Trust, which are referred to in paragraphs 59 and 60 thereof and

2. Continental Mortgage 1975 $729,050,000. $58,225,000. which consist of copies of the campaign finance reports of

Investors, Boston committees organized to favor and oppose a 1972 Massa-

. — — ay. 12 COL AEE SEE. chusetts ballot question proposing a graduated income tax.

Springfield Those reports appear at pages A-47 through A-113 of the

4 ee 1975 $373,984,000. $28,816,000. Record Appendix submitted to the Supreme Judicial

5. Equitable Life 1975 $358,961,000. $32,555,000. Court. |

& Realty — — ee

. gh Group, 2 Cn It is agreed by the parties, with reference to paragraphs

7. Massmutual Mortgage & 1975 $231,038,000. $18,604,000. 59 and 60 of the Statement of Agreed Facts, that the

8 1515 Springfield 1975 $212,478,000. $20,939,000. documents set forth herein as exhibits ‘‘A’’ and B-

Mortgage Investors, were submitted to the Supreme Judicial Court as an

Boston appendix to the brief of two intervening defendant

ppendix to the brief of two intervening defendants

a oy 1K (Coalition for Tax Reform, Inc. and United Peoples, Inc.),

10. Security Mortgage 1975 $205,029,000. $11,621,000. which two entities are no longer parties to this case.]

Investors, Boston

11. First Pennsylvania Mort- 1975 $188,758,000. $ 9,702,000.

gage Trust, Boston

12. Institutional Investors 1975 $186,468,000. $11,951,000.

Trust, Boston

13. C. I. Realty Investors 1975 $185,768,000. $30,514,000.

14. BT Mortgage Investors 1975 $170,316,000. $ 9,889,000.

15. Gulf Mortgage & Realty 1975 $150,540,000. $11,023,000.

Inv., Boston

16. State Mutual Inv., 1975 $137,914,000. $ 9,696,000.

Worcester

17. Barnes Mortgage Investment 1975 $118,153,000. $ 7,464,000.

Trust, Boston

18. American Fletcher Mortgage 1974 $114,473,000. $ 7,617,000.

Inv., Boston

19. Hubbard Real Estate 1975 $ 94,993,000. $ 8,784,000.

Investment, Boston

20. TMC Mortgage Investors, 1974 6 87,431,000. $11,541,000.

Boston

* American Banker, Vol. CXL No. 191, Oct. 2, 1975

** Figures su by National Association of Real Estate Investment

Trusts, 1101 Seventeenth St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036

Ee ̃ :w,:ʃ.ödb! Ä

32

‘“*EXHIBIT A“

Massacuvsetts Law Rerorm Institute

2 Park SquaRe

Boston, Massacuvusetts 02110

Arga Cope 617

482-0890

May 10, 1976

Mr. Peter F. Rousmaniere

242 Clark Road

Brookline, Massachusetts 02146

Re: GIT finances, 1972

Dear Peter:

I need your help right away in finding out (1) what

was received, (2) what was expended and (3) what of

these was, if anything, not reported to the Secretary of

State by Coalition for Tax Reform with respect to the

1972 GIT campaign.

Enclosed herewith are copies of pages A-41 and A-42

of the record appendix in the First National Bank (II)

case, wherein the corporations (again) seek to have inval-

idated the election law provision prohibiting corporate con-

tributions to the GIT campaign. The relevant paragraphs

59 and 60 of the statement of facts agreed to by the plain-

tiffs and the AG, state that CTR spent only approximately

$7,000 on the campaign.

But I thought the true figure was closer to $15,000!

Enclosed also are copies of pages A-85 through A-113

(less duplications and blank pages) which purport to

be the back-up for the conclusion that CTR spent only

$7,000.

Please examine this material, whatever records you

have and, if necessary, whatever records others (Julie

Perkins of LWV; Cathy Keefe of Common Canse/Mass..)

may have and tell me quickly the answers to these

questions :

I. What did CTR receive with respect to the

1972 campaign?

2. What did CTR spend with respect to the

1972 campaign?

3. What are the details supporting your ans-

wers not accounted for in the copies en-

closed of S/S records?

Since CTR will probably be granted conditional inter-

vener status in this case (i.e., we may be able to add a little

to the stipulation of ‘‘facts’’ and we will be able to brief

and argue the case), we cannot allow the case to be sub-

mitted to the court on false facts.

This is important. Please call me right away.

Sincerely yours,

Ernest Winsor

EW II

Enclosures

xe with enclosures: Diane Kesstex, MCC

Jute Perkins anp FLorence Rusiy,

LWV

CatrnHryn Keere, Common Cause/

Mass.

Barpara A. SMITH

34

‘*EXHIBIT B”’

Peter F. Rousmaniere

242 Clark Rd.

Brookline, Mass. 02146

May 20, 1976

Mr. Ernest Winsor,

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute,

2 Park Sq.,

Boston, Mass. 02116

Dear Tony,

I have received and reviewed your letter dated May

10, 1976. I have examined the pertinent documents, and

although my examination is not complete, I believe that

the information I submit to you in this letter is reliable.

All receipts and disbursements of the Coalition for

Tax Reform, Inc., between August, 1971, and August, 1973,

were handled through a checking account at the National

Shawmut Bank, acct. #046-876-2. These receipts and dis-

bursements summarize the Coalition’s financial operations

with respect to the graduated income tax campaign and,

to a limited degree, its on-going activities in the area of

tax reform.

Receipt of funds for the 1972 campaign.

I have included a ‘table which identifies the date and

amount of bank deposits, the recognition or non-recogni-

tion of the deposit in statements filed by me with the Sec-

retary of State, and the amount of understatement of de-

posits if any.

It is clear that the photocopied statements filed with

the Secretary of State which you provided me significantly

understate actual deposits. Also, statements as you pro-

vided them to me are not available for some periods in

1972 and all periods in 1973.

*

At the present time, I cannot determine why actual

deposits were not reported in a timely fashion to the Sec-

retary of State. I wish to note that, at the time, consider-

able confusion existed within the Secretary of State’s office

regarding the guidelines for filing of such statements.

_ Disbursement of funds for the 1972 campaign.

I have included a table which identifies by period dis-

bursements the recognition or non recognition of the dis-

bursements in statements filed by me with the Secretary of

State, and the amount of understatement of disbursements

if any. |

As in the case of receipts, | cannot determine at the

present time the cause of the discrepancies.

Yours very truly,

Perer F. RousMANIERE

Examination oF Receipt or Funps sy tHe Coauition ror Tax Rerorm, Inc.

1/5/73 - 8/31/73

TOTALS:

Amount per Bank

3,968.25

459.00

1,947.50

5,313.00

563.00

2,276.00

14,526.75

S/S Statement

On or before

9/15/72

10/1 — 10/20/72

10/20 -11/ 5/72

11/15 - 11/30/72

aS

no statements

Amount per

Statement Understatemeni

3,956.25 12.00

none 459.00

1,942.50 5.00

none 5,313.00

563.00

none 2,276.00

6,461.75 8,065.00

ExaminaTion oF DispurseMENT oF Funps ay THE CoaLiTION ror Tax Rerorm, Ino.

Period of

Disbursement

on or before

9/15/72

9/16 —9/30

10/1 — 10/20

10/21 — 11/05

Jan. Aug., 1973

TOTALS

Amount per

Bank

* Checks cleared and bank charges.

S/S Statement

on or before

9/15/72

9/16 - 9/30

10/1 — 10/20

10/21 — 11/05

no statements

Amount per (Over) — under-

Statement statement

3,328.91 (820.49)

795.35 (795.35)

362.05 787.11

none 2,634.02

none 8,216.11

4,486.31 100,211.40