The CHAIRMAN. The maintenance of rental skates is rather high, is it not?

Mr. MARTIN. The provision of replacement I would say as well as the repair of the skates constitutes usually a turnover annually. In other words, your equipment would normally be replaced each year. The wear and tear on the equipment is rather severe.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Mason will inquire. Mr. MASON. The point that you made which interests me most of all is the fact that by imposing this tax on private enterprise, private entertainment, you are taxing them out of business and forcing the Government to go into that business, which is a decidedly socialistic trend, and I am opposed to it. I think that is a very telling blow which you delivered taxing private enterprise in the recreational field.

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Mason. We agree with you entirely. Mr. Chairman, may I also request unanimous approval of the written statement as presented by Mr. Litzenberger?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. That has been made a part of our record.

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, gentlemen.

The CHAIRMAN. The next is Mr. Ebersole, executive secretary of the National Bowling Council.

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. CANELLI, TOLEDO, OHIO, PAST PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BOWLING COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY L. A. EBERSOLE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, NATIONAL BOWLING COUNCIL

Mr. CANELLI. We have a short presentation. May I have the privilege of making the presentation instead of Mr. Ebersole, who is listed? The CHAIRMAN. That will be all right, if you will just give your name and the capacity in which you appear.

Mr. CANELLI. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is John J. Canelli. I am from Toledo, Ohio. I am a past president of the National Bowling Council, and of the American Bowling Congress.

The National Bowling Council, composed of representatives of all of the various bowling groups-the American Bowling Congress, the Woman's International Bowling Congress, the National Duck Pin Bowling Congress, the Allied Candle Pin and Rubberband Pin Associations, the Bowling Proprietors Association of America, the Billiard and Bowling Institute of America (which is the association of manufacturers and dealers), and so forth-representing some 16 million bowlers and 10,000 bowling establishments, respectfully urges your committee to give immediate and earnest consideration to the matter of the removal of all nianufacturers excise taxes on bowling pins, bowling balls, billiard and pool tables and balls and cues, as well as the removal of the $20 annual excise (or occupancy) tax on bowling alleys and billiard and pool tables.

The present 15-percent monufacturer's excise tax on bowling pins and balls, and billiard and pool tables and cues and balls, in accordance with the Revenue Act of 1951, automotically reverts back to a 10-percent tax on April 1, 1954. The committee is urged not only to oppose any extension of the present tax, but to recommend the removal of the entire tax.

37746-53-pt. 4- -21

The Revenue Act of 1943 provided for a $10 per annum increase in excise (or occupancy) taxes on bowling alleys and billiard and pool tables, said increase to end on June 30 next following the first day of the first month which began six months or more after the termination of hostilities in World War II. Although, technically, this provision of the act would have gone into effect by virtue of the declaration of the President of the United States, on December 31, 1946, "that hostilities had ended," the Congress, on January 3, 1947, immediately reinstated, without a termination date, all existing excise taxes.

We wish to point out to the committee that participation in recreation has become recognized as an important and necessary adjunct to the daily lives of our citizens, being particularly so recognized by the military, and by the industrial plants of the Nation. As such, bowling, billiards, and pool are participant recreations, providing valuable and necessary physical recreation for millions of Americans, an important factor in all military camps and installations, and a valuable part of the recreation programs of some 20,000 industrial plants of the country.

We further submit that these taxes bear most heavily on those of our citizens who are least able to pay. Certainly it can be stated without fear of contradiction that all manufacturers excise taxes, and occupancy excise taxes are passed on to the consumer-the public-for the simple reason that such taxes are a necessary production and operating cost.

Bowling, as well as billiards and pool, is the poor man's recreation. The income chart submitted in 1951 by the Secretary of the Treasury shows that 83 percent of the taxpayers of the country earn less than $5,000 per year. Certainly nothing has occurred in the interim to justify the assumption that this condition has changed. A few years ago the Department of Commerce issued a report showing that 77 percent of the wage earners of the country were in the less than $3,000 per year salary bracket. In relative value of today's salary levels and cost of living we are certain the same percentage still holds. A very careful survey by the national bowling organizations shows that 85 percent of all bowling participants come from the lower income brackets and, as such, are least able to pay these taxes-which they have been doing since 1941.

Now, 12 years after the imposition of the 10-percent manufacturer's excise tax on bowling pins and balls, billiard and pool tables and balls and cues, 12 years after the imposition of a $10 per alley bed and billiard and pool-table excise, or occupancy, tax, and 10 years after this tax was increased to $20 per year, we respectfully submit the reasons for these have been worn out, in that they were primarily enacted as wartime taxes; that the amount of revenue accruing therefrom is not comparable to the burden placed on that portion of the country's citizenry-to whom participation in recreation is virtually a physical necessity; and we therefore urge, in the interest of these millions of working men and women, that all manufacturer's excise taxes be removed from bowling pins and balls, billiard and pool tables, and cues and balls, and that the $20 annual excise (or occupancy) tax be removed from bowling alleys and billiard and pool tables.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you very much, sir. That is very revealing.

Mr. CANELLI. Thank you for the privilege of appearing.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sadlak will inquire.

Mr. SADLAK. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that both of these gentlemen know a great many of my constituents. We start the list with Nick Tronsky, Joe Gacek, Jack White, and Joe Genovese, and I am sure Mr. Ebersole will recall that at the spring meeting this year, I had him looking all over the place to find Joe.

There are a great many bowlers in Connecticut, and I think both of these gentlemen will concede that they are very good ones.

My question is this: There is no limitation as to the age for participants in bowling, unlike the age limitation on skiing, to which the gentleman from South Paris, Maine, has testified. In other words, bowling is something which is a recreation for all ages.

Mr. CANELLI. May I make this statement, Mr. Chairman. It is one of the proudest boasts of our sport that we allow participation by people from 8 to 80.

The CHAIRMAN. I have not quit skating yet. I do not know about

the others.

Mr. SADLAK. How about your skiing, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. I have not had the opportunity to do that in our country.

Mr. MASON. There is no age limit on swimming. I guarantee you that.

Mr. EBERHARTER. I want to say to Mr. Canelli and to Mr. Ebersole, I know that bowling particularly has taken a very important place in the athletic activity, if you call it that, recreational activity, of many of the finest organizations in this country, such as women's clubs and churches, and all civic organizations and industrial plants. It is used extensively as a means of bringing industrial-plant employees in certain sections together and getting the spirit of morale up. Is that so, Mr. Canelli?

Mr. CANELLI. In that connection, Mr. Eberharter, it has been proved that in industrial plants where bowling is a part of activities, from the personnel department, that the cost to the company is the lowest, and as to the participants themselves, who become devotees to bowling, in their activities after the league hours in the company are over, they take this up.

Also, as far as the membership of these various organizations I cited in the presentation of my statement, if you took the schools, we have over 75,000 children bowling in organized bowling this year. If you took the membership of the industrial plants and of the churches and of the various fraternal organizations away from the American Bowling Congress and the WIBC, you would have a very, very few teams to go with, and it wouldn't support the game as we choose to see it supported. That is true, sir.

Mr. ÉBERHARTER. I never got into the bowling game, but I have been in some bowling alleys, and it seems that when I go into them, I see more women bowling than men. There are many, many teams of women bowlers, and they are more enthusiastic in some respects than men; is that so? Or did that just happen to be my impression?

Mr. CANELLI. No. That impression is quite well ratified or certified in this: If it had not been for the advent of women bowlers some 15 or 20 years ago, I think bowling would still be looked at in the reprehensible manner that some places were many years ago. In other

words, you didn't take your bowling ball home. You were afraid to take it home because you were afraid they would think you were a thief besides being a bowler.

The ladies have come into it and they have increased the number of mixed leagues, where the husband and wife or a man and his sweetheart or father-daughter, participate. The mixed leagues are definitely on the increase in greater percentage than the ordinary bowling

teams.

Mr. EBERHARTER. It is healthful, provides the social activities, and in some cases promotes marriage.

Mr. CANELLI. I am going to be very careful how I answer the latter part of your statement, sir, but as far as fraternalism or the social aspect is concerned, we think it is the finest.

Mr. SADLAK. Mr. Chairman, I think it also ought to be noted in the record that we have bowling leagues among the secretaries here on Capitol Hill. A young lady who had been a member of my office staff for 5 years prior to her marriage, was a good bowler-she came from Hartford, Conn.-she copped some of the championships in the Congressional Secretaries League here last year.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for the information you have given us. Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

Mr. CANELLI. Thank you for the honor of being permitted to appear, gentlemen.

(The following statement was submitted for the record on topic 40:) CHAIN OF ROCKS AMUSEMENT PARK, INC., St. Louis 15, Mo., August 7, 1953.

Re 20 percent admissions tax.

Congressman THOMAS B. CURTIS,

House Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN CURTIS: I, Carl F. Trippe, own and operate the Chain of Rocks Amusement Park, located in St. Louis, Mo. I am a member of the National Association of Amusement Parks, Pools, and Beaches, which has its headquarters in Chicago, Ill. Its membership extends to 40 States and is divided as follows: 169 amusement parks, 15 pools, 12 beaches.

The amusement park, beach, pool business is a privately financed taxpaying recreational entertainment medium for the masses. We can see no reason for ever having placed a luxury tax on us.

I urge that the 20 percent admissions tax be eliminated from the tax structure. As you will recall this was placed upon our industry as a wartime-revenue measure. We believe it has served that purpose. While we, and particularly the public, bore the tax during that period, it is now evident that were it to become a permanent part of our tax structure it would be highly inequitable. As you undoubtedly know television has hurt our business to a great extent. People spend a great deal of their time viewing TV and do not bother to come out to the park to enjoy the merry-go-round, ferris wheel, roller coaster, etc. The amusement park is as typically American as the hot dog. Most of our customers consist of family groups, in the middle- and lower-income groups and particularly the younger people. The amusement park could not survive without the support of the teen-age boys and girls. I appeal in their behalf that the 20 percent luxury tax be abolished.

Almost 80 percent of our business comes from children and teen-agers. Under the law, we must charge a child over 12 adult fare and also the luxury tax. These kids are taxed in the same category as one who buys imported champagne or rare perfume.

We have a free gate and charge for admission to each ride or amusement. We have not increased our prices in over 10 years and we absorbed the Federal tax and State tax.

Instead of 10 cents for a merry-go-round ride we must collect 12 cents. Out of every 5 rides a child gives up 1 ride in taxes.

The only time most children go to an amusement park is to attend the Sunday school or class day picnic and it hardly seems fair that out of $1 of his allowance 20 cents should go for taxes.

At my park fully two-thirds of our patrons enjoy a free gate and free parking, free picnic facilities, free ball diamond, and free entertainment program without the necessity of spending one dime.

I know if the 20 percent luxury excise tax is removed, the United States Treasury would lose only $6 million or $8 million but would gain the undying gratitude of some 25 million youngsters and their parents.

As you know our business is seasonal. Our season runs from the middle of May through Labor Day. One day of bad weather and the loss can never be fully regained. We have at times suffered long periods of rainy weather and of course can never hope to regain these losses.

We are an established nickel-and-dime industry and any price increase loses patrons. The 20 percent excise tax not only serves as a price increase but in effect, as I mentioned before, eats up 1 unit of sales out of every 5. Not only does the child lose two additional rides from his dollar, but we, in turn, lose the income to pay our increasing costs and our hopes to make a profit. This is in direct contrast to the situation of our higher priced competitors in the amusement field who operate the year around regardless of weather.

During our long inoperative period of nearly 8 months, high labor costs have placed extra heavy maintenance burdens upon us. Replacement of our buildings and equipment would be well-nigh impossible at present-day costs. This is one of the major reasons why there are so few amusement parks in the Nation. I don't think one new park a year has been built in the past 10 years.

We do not feel that we should be unfairly burdened with this tax in relation to our direct competitors. The original enactment of the admissions tax covered all admissions of every type regardless of the organization, business, or enterprise, charging admissions. But in the Revenue Act of 1951 the Congress amended the admission-tax provision of the tax laws granting exemption from the admission tax to our most direct competitor, municipal parks and pools. When Congress originally passed the 20-percent admissions tax the fair and logical approach of treating all admissions alike was adopted. Everyone was left in the same competitive position as before. Municipal pools, skating rinks, and other locally owned and operated amusement facilities have always been our greatest competitors. Their favored position is well known but is a local matter. We do not feel Congress knowingly intended to inject the Federal Government into such a competitive situation on one side or another.

However, in 1951, the Congress enacted section 1701 (d) of the Internal Revenue Code, which in brief exempted from the admissions tax "swimming pools, bathing beaches, skating rinks, or other places providing facilities for physical exercise, operated by any State or political subdivision-if the proceeds therefrom inure exclusively to the benefit of the State or political subdivision." The result of this enactment is to promote business for a nontaxpaying unit of our economy, while discouraging the business of a taxpaying entity, upon which not only State and local government depend for revenue but the Federal Government itself. This we believe is counter to the best interest of our economy to our free-enterprise system, and to the fundamental principles by which this country has grown.

I know that your committee is seeking to revise the present revenue laws into a logical and equitable tax structure. As an independent small taxpaying businessman, I have tried to explain to you the discriminatory and incongruous results of the 20-percent admissions tax as it affects me and the American public I serve.

In your conscientious consideration of this problem, we are sure you will agree that the 20-percent admissions tax applied to our seasonal amusement parks, pools, and beaches is self-defeating, destructive to the overall economy, and that its elimination would be a good first step in revising our tax laws to a sound and equitable basis.

Thanking you for your consideration, I remain

Yours very truly,

CHAIN OF ROCKS AMUSEMENT PARK, INC.,
CARL F. TRIPPE.

The CHAIRMAN. I think we have covered everybody. Are there any other witnesses here? (No response.)

The committee stands adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 9 p. m., the committee adjourned.)