FARM TAXES IN MASSACHUSETTS 111 



than they would otliervvise liave received. In tliis case, imderassessnient benefits 

 one town at the expense of many others. 



A third important cause of intentional underassessment is the desire to keep 

 state and county taxes low. These taxes are levied against the town in pro- 

 portion to its assessed \ahiatiun, and wliile attem])ts have been made by the 

 state authorities to equalize valuations where a town's valuation was obviously 

 too low, such equalization has failed to remedy the situation. 



Property of relatively low value is generally assessed below its fair value, 

 especially when the owner is in poor circumstances, as is often the case. 

 Other investigations have shown that this situation is common to other states. 



Similarly, large properties are commonly imdervalued. The amount of tax 

 to be paid rather than the actual value of the property assessed seems to be 

 the determining factor in such cases, particularly in small towns where there 

 are few large taxpayfers. Such undervaluation may not be intentional; it is 

 often caused by the difficulty of applying unbiased judgment to assessments 

 considerably above tlie average. However, most cases of such personal dis- 

 crimination are intentional, especially where a few individuals pay a sub- 

 stantial part of the town taxes or have done a great deal to help the town. 

 This type of discrimination is usually justified by the assessors on the ground 

 that it is better to collect some taxes than to lose them altogether by causing 

 the departure of the wealthy taxpayer to some other town. Such concessions 

 amount to partial tax exemption and where granted to wealthy taxpayers are 

 usually made for the same purpose that Western and Southern towns grant 

 tax exemption to new industries. It is assumed that the benefit to the town 

 offsets the loss in taxes. 



Intentional discrimination in assessing the property of non-resident owners 

 is common. Assessors often place low valuations on the cottages or remod- 

 elled farmhouses of summer residents in order to encourage further develop- 

 ment. In other cases, assessors regard non-resident property' owners as fair 

 prey and assess their property proportionally higher than similar property 

 owned locally. Many assessors admit this to be a common practice. 



The conclusion should not be drawn from the preceding discussion that most 

 underassessment is intentional. It is true that tliere is a certain amount of 

 carelessness in assessment, but most assessors are doing the best they can 

 under existing conditions. Fair assessment calls for skilled appraisal, and it 

 can not be expected that assessors who spend only a short time each year at 

 their duties, and who are elected for no more reason than that they are well- 

 known and respected citizens, can perform their duties in expert fashion. 



RELATION OF TAXES TO INCOME. 

 Farm Taxes and Farm Income. (6) 



It has been stated previously that the underlying assumption of our genera] 

 property tax system is the ability to pay as measured by the value of prop- 

 erty owned. Taxes must be paid out of income, and if income is not in pro- 

 portion to the value of the property, then the above assumption is unsound. 

 The property tax assumes that all assessed property is annually and uni- 

 formly productive, but obviously this is not the case. Farm property varies 

 greatly in productivity from year to year and the element of ri.sk in farming 

 is greater than in almost any other business. Since property values do not 

 fluctuate with the income from that property, particularly in the case of real 

 estate, it follows that a tax on property value may be unfair in any given 



