TAXATION OF DAIRY FARMS 15 



of Corporations and Taxation can bring only such aid as is possible within the 

 structure of the system. 



Currently the need is for greater objectivity; for standards that assessors 

 generally can use in the valuation procedure. A new point of view may be a 

 necessary prerequisite to this end. Evidence is abundant that for real propertv 

 market value or sale value is inadequate. At some, perhaps, but at very little 

 risk, it can be noted that no studies of Assessment have been made that show 

 agreement between assessed value and market value. It might be clarifying to 

 acknowledge that for assessment purposes real propetry has a particular value- 

 a value which may be associated with market value but which is nonetheless 

 distinct for taxing purposes. 



Consideration of this viewpoint would ease the acceptance of a classification 

 system for farm property; a device which would be an aid to objecti\e assess- 

 ment. Such a system could provide for standard valuations for all farm propertv 

 of a given classification at least within towns. Some of the inequity between 

 farms would be eliminated by this practice. As experience with the system in- 

 creased, inequitable differences among similar classes of farms in different towno 

 would tend to be corrected. It is inconceivable that we could standardize our 

 concept of a farm without having it influence relative value. 



The mechanics of a classification system for farm property are less easih' stated 

 than the general criterion which is "capability." As used here, capability refers 

 to farm productivity and is an extension of the term as used by the Soil Conser- 

 vation Service which applies it only to the land. For land, the classes as used by 

 the Soil Conservation Service would be satisfactory; additional classes for build- 

 ings would have to be established; and a factor or factors developed for location 

 difTerences within towns. The amount of detail involved is a variable but would 

 depend to a large extent on the objectives set for classification. 



The classification of land and buildings for economic purposes is not new. The 

 New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell some jears ago devised a set 

 of economic classesi^ by which the relative value of farms in New York State 

 could be generally identified. Other states and communities have had varving 

 experiences. 



A system of classification depends on an intimate knowledge of the potentialities 

 of the farm and a willingness to establish and accept general standards. Until 

 recently the unavailability and costs of technical skill have been a deterrent to- 

 large-scale classification. With the organization of the Soil Conservation Service 

 however, this handicap can be gradually removed. Fulfillment of its program 

 depends on the accurate mapping and description of the soils on each farT. The 

 Soil Conservation Service maps or maps of similar tjpe might form an excellent 

 beginning for a classification schedule. 



Personal propertj^ presents some additional problems. Machinery and liv-e- 

 stock may not seem to have as much in common as land and buildings, but these 

 physical dififerences need not be too much of a handicap. The assessment of 

 machinery and equipment might be improved by clarification as to the items to 

 be covered. To this, if items like tractors and attachments are to be assessed 

 rate schedule similar to that used for autos might be added. 



Market value as a basis for assessment appears more adaptable to livestock 

 and stocks on hand than to any other personalty. Even in this category the 

 differences in valuation on cattle and poultry require attention. Cows in milk 

 growing yearlings, laying pullets have different values than dry cows or old hens' 

 Purebreds presumably have different values than grades, and heavy producers- 



J' A. B. Lewis, N. Y. (Cornell) Agr. Expt. Sta. Memoir 160, 1934. 



