Masonry Magazine June 1964 Page. 22
WAL-LOK
STANDARD
No. 9 ga. Siderods,
No. 10 ga. GALVANIZED Cressrods
SUPERSTANDARD
No. 8 ga. Siderods,
No. 10 ga. GALVANIZED Crossrods
EXTRA HEAVY
3/16 Siderads.
No. 9 ga. GALVANIZED Cressreds
No other reinforcing has all these features found on all three grades of WAL-LOK. WAL-LOK is double deformed for maximum bond. The tensile strength of WAL-LOK is retained after welding. WAL-LOK has rectangular design for stronger welds and more steel in the mortar. WAL-LOK Crossrods project for 4 extra strong mortar locks at each weld. Crossrods hold WAL-LOK up off the blocks for complete embedment in the mortar. Write for free brochure today.
DIVISION OF LOK LENAWEE WAL
P. O. BOX 516
PEERLESS, INC.
ADRIAN, MICHIGAN
REVENUE ACT OF 1964
The Revenue Act of 1964 effected major changes in both tax liabilities and the withholding rate. Therefore it is desirable for wage earners in the middle and upper wage brackets to review their pay-as-you-go status for 1964.
Under our pay-as-you-go system the vast majority of taxpayers-typically two out of three are entitled to refunds at the end of the year because the taxes withheld from their wages and quarterly payments on declarations of estimated tax exceed their liability. A third of all taxpayers owe additional taxes at the end of the year. Attempting to provide withholding tailor-made to the needs of each individual taxpayer so he would come out "even" at the end of the year would, of course, be almost impossible and would impose a substantial hardship on both employees and employer.
The withholding rate dropped from 18 percent to 14 percent in March under the Revenue Act of 1964. This Act provides for a two-step reduction in individual income tax liability rates the first to be effective for the calendar year 1964, the second for calendar year 1965. In the initial version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives there was also a two-step reduction in the withholding rate; the rate to be put into effect as of January 1964 was 15 percent followed by a 14 percent rate as of January 1965.
However, since the Revenue Act was not adopted until late February, 1964 the 18 percent rate was necessarily continued during this interim. The over withholding at the beginning of 1964 permitted immediate transition to the 14 percent rate which was originally prescribed for 1965. This action relieved employers of having to make two successive changes; one for the balance of 1964 and the other to take effect in 1965, and also avoided the additional over withholding that would otherwise have occurred in 1964.
The combination of the 18 percent withholding rate in effect through March 4, 1964 and the 14 percent withholdiny rate in effect after that date an average rate of 14.7 percent for the year-will in some cases result in a reduction in withholding in excess of the reduction in total tax liability for 1964. Although most taxpayers will continue to receive refunds, some who previously received small refunds will shift to a moderate balance due and others will owe larger balances than before. A similar situation would have occurred had the 15 percent withholding rate in the House Bill been effective for 1964.
Those who after reviewing their expected 1964 tax status face probably balances due have alternative opportunities for adjustments available. Adjustments may be made either by amending the quarterly declaration at one of the filing dates and increasing payments or by arranging for additional withholding by employers.
Because of variations in each individual tax situation, it is difficult to generalize about the type of taxpayer who may have a significantly larger balance due. However a rough rule-of-thumb is a single person using the standard deduction and receiving all wage income who is above $5000 could have a balance due that he may want to avoid. By the same token, married couples using the standard deduction and with more than $10,000 of combined salary could also have balances due they may want to avoid. Generally taxpayers with income above these levels are required to file declarations of estimated tax.
It is emphasized that all taxpayers received a substantial tax cut under the law. Unless adjustments are made however underwithholding will result in some instances in 1964. It should be noted that in 1965 the tax rate will drop further but the 14 percent withholding rate will remain the same.
COURT RULING
The U. S. District Court in New Haven, Connecticut, has ruled that Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz did not forfeit his right of action in a union case by filing suit two days after the time period set in the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
The law's 60-day time limit within which the Secretary may file a complaint asking for the re-run of union elections was viewed as directory rather than mandatory.
The question arose from an action brought by the Labor Department te set aside an election hell by Local 611 of the Hod Carriers union. The complaint was filed with the clerk of the court 62 days after the Departmen had received a complaint from a member of the union protesting the conduct of an election held by the local. The union asked that the case be dismissed because of late filing.
The court ruled that although the Secretary filed his complaint in cour on the 62nd day, it was a timely complaint because the 60th day fell on Sunday and the 61st day was a holi day when the courts were closed.