TAXATION OF WOODLANDS. I7I 



The foregoing statements show the amount of the taxation for 

 the year 1918-19 when the woodlands are assessed for income 

 tax under Schedule B. In addition, death duties have to be 

 paid at the rate of 21 per cent, on the net value of any timber 

 sold. 



It should also be remembered that in the case of agricultural 

 lands the occupier has the option in any year of being assessed 

 either under Schedule B or Schedule D, but that in the case of 

 woodlands if the occupier elects to be assessed under Schedule 

 D, he is not allowed to revert to Schedule B. 



It is often said that an owner of woodlands dissatisfied with 

 taxation under Schedule B, should avail himself of the option to 

 claim assessment under Schedule D. I maintain, however, that 

 under Schedule D woodlands are taxed not only unfairly but to 

 a greater extent than any other form of property. Anyone who 

 is liable for death duties on the highest scale has to pay 

 21 percent, on the net value of timber sold, and he also has 

 to pay under Schedule D los. 6d. per ^ (52^ per cent.) for 

 income tax and super-tax. 



It is important to note that this taxation is not on an annual 

 crop, but on the accumulated value of trees which were planted 

 from say 50 to 150 years ago. If woodlands in this country 

 were in regular gradations of ages, as in continental forests 

 where scientific forestry has been practised for centuries, there 

 would be a fairly even and assured annual income, but there are 

 very few, if any, estates in this country where such conditions 

 exist. Moreover, this state of affairs has been accentuated by 

 the exceptionally heavy fellings of both mature and immature 

 woods which have been made during the war, in response to 

 the national requirements and at the express request of the 

 Government. 



I believe there is no other form of property of which the value 

 when realised is treated as capital for death duties and as income 

 for income tax, etc., purposes, and I maintain that such a 

 method of taxation is absolutely unjust. 



For instance, suppose anyone is left ;^ioo,ooo in stocks, and 

 also timber to the value of ^100,000; in a case where death 

 duties are payable on the highest scale, the amount of duty on 

 the stocks would be ^^2 1,000, and if the stocks are sold there 

 is nothing more to pay ; whereas in the case of the timber, if it is 

 sold, there is not only ^21,000 of death duties to pay, but also 



