18 



The Florists^ Review 



FiBKCABY 17, 1921 



liiv*^-!tV^JtxSjJtV8!tJtv8jJt^<t/0t>8^'lxgjJl^»^lxR^ 



NEW YORK GROWERS ORGANIZE. 



Enthusiastic Gathering. 



The flower growers around New York 

 and in nearby New Jersey held a meet- 

 ing Friday afternoon, February 11, in 

 the room used by the New York Flo- 

 rists' Club in the Engineering Societies' 

 building. About fifty were present. The 

 call for the meeting was signed by F. R. 

 Pierson, Tarrytown, N. Y.; Eugene 

 Dailledouze, Brooklyn; Robert Simpson, 

 Clifton, N. J.; William H. Duckham and 

 C. H. Totty, Madison, N. J.; M. Math- 

 cron, Baldwin, L. I.; F. B. Abrams, Blue 

 Point, L. I.; John N. May, Jr., Summit, 

 N. J.; L. B. Coddington, Murray Hill, 

 N. J.; Joseph A. Manda, West Orange, 

 N. J., and F. L. Atkins, Rutherford, N. 

 J., and read: "The purpose of this 

 meeting is to discuss the organization 

 of all growers in connection with the 

 forming of the Allied Florists' Trade 

 Association of New York, the advisa- 

 bility of local advertising, and other 

 important matters." 



Opening Address. 



A. M. Henshaw, president of the 

 Allied Florists' Trade Association, 

 opened the meeting with a somewhat 

 lengthy address in which he pointed out 

 the desirability of organization on the 

 part of the growers to promote pub- 

 licity for flowers. It was believed, he 

 said, that the time for action had ar- 

 rived, and that the growers could and 

 should start advertising in the local 

 papers right away. There had been 

 meetings galore, but nothing in the di- 

 rection of publicity had been accom- 

 plished. Only a small number of re- 

 tailers had shown interest in publicity 

 work, but when it would be seen that 

 the growers had started publicity work 

 in earnest, the retailers, no doubt, would 

 get busy and help the movement. The 

 suggestion before the meeting on which 

 action was required was that growers 

 be assessed $2 per thousand feet of glass 

 operated, which was a small figure when 

 compared with the basis of the fund 

 raised by the Chicago growers. A 

 ■change in this rate could, he said, of 

 course be made at any time, either 

 higher or lower. Anyone taking a look 

 around the flower markets that day, he 

 remarked, could jilainly see tlie neces- 

 sity for some urgent measure to move 

 stock. It was evident that the public 

 was not buying, or else the retail flo- 

 rists were content with few sales. The 

 idea was, he said, to pay twenty-five 

 per cent of the fund raised by the 

 growers into the national publicity 

 •campaign fund and use the remaining 

 seventy-five per cent for local publicity. 

 Concluding, he turned the chair over 

 to F. R. Pierson, chairman of the grow- 

 CTs' section of the Allied Florists' Trade 

 Association. 



Plea for Action. 



Mr. Pierson made a stirring address, 

 «mphasizing the fact that it was time 

 to cease talking and do something and 



that there was no better chance for 

 action than at that meeting. A number 

 of leading growers had already agreed 

 to come into an organization on the 

 basis mentioned, with an aggregate of 

 glass amounting to about 2,000,000 

 square feet. He called for additions to 

 the list and potted every grower pres- 

 ent, with the result that the aggregate 

 was increased by almost another mil- 

 lion square feet. Mr. Henshaw, who 

 acted as temporary secretary, was kept 

 busy recording pledges. 



Independent Association. 



Considerable discussion was evoked 

 on the question of the form the organ- 

 ization should take. It was suggested 

 that it should become a section of the 

 Allied Florists' Trade Association of 

 New York. Wallace R. Pierson, treas- 

 urer of the National Flower Growers' 

 Association, urged that it become a 

 local branch of that association. But 

 the sentiment of the meeting was 



against alliance of any kind at the pres- 

 ent time, although the matter might be 

 discussed at a future meeting. 



On motion of Harry O. May, it was 

 decided that organization be effected 

 immediately under the name of the New 

 York Flower and Plant Growers' Asso- 

 ciation, and that a committee be ap- 

 pointed to draft a constitution and by- 

 laws. F. R. Pierson was elected chair- 

 man of the organization, Prank H. 

 Traendly, vice-chairman, and A. M. 

 Henshaw, secretary-treasurer. The as- 

 sessment of $2 per thousand feet of 

 glass was adopted, payment to be in 

 four quarterly installments. The sec- 

 retary was instructed to render bills 

 for the January and April installments 

 at once. An executive committee was 

 appointed, comprising Eugene Daille- 

 douze, W. H. Duckham, F. H. Traendly, 

 C. H. Totty and F. B, Abrams, and it 

 was understood that the committee 

 should meet Monday, February 14, with 

 a view to arranging details as to the 

 initial advertising, which is to be com- 

 menced at once. 



All present agreed to use every en- 

 deavor to induce other growers to come 

 into the organization and there was 

 much enthusiasm over the prospect of 

 quickly forming a strong and active as- 

 sociation. J. H. P. 



s^ TAX PROBLEMS s»^ 



8^1^«>(1rrsv1r)«\1i/st1tysrl^A8vlr/svlr^1^r*^1rAS^1rr*^1.Y•^1y•Y 



PUBLICITY IS AN EXPENSE. 



When our great and good government 

 at Washington writes to you, as it has 

 done to many florists, for a list of the 

 items which went into your expense ac- 

 count and were deducted from taxable 

 income — when the government makes 

 such a request of you, we say, don't put 

 down your payments to trade publicity 

 funds as "donations." Several sup- 

 porters of the publicity campaigns have 

 made that mistake and have been in- 

 formed donations are not deductible 

 from income, so they have had to pay 

 profits and income tax on expenditures 

 they listed that way. Payments to the 

 publicity funds are not gifts; they are 

 a legitimate business expense and 

 should be charged as such, to advertis- 

 ing- 



DEPRECIATION CHARGES. 



I wish you would give us, through 

 The Review if you like, a line on how 

 to figure the depreciation on commercial 

 greenhouses. Growers here figure ten to 

 twenty per cent of the original cost as 

 the yearly depreciation in making their 

 tax returns. Do you think it proper to 

 base depreciation on the original costt 

 The cost of replacing or rebuilding 

 would probably cost me four times as 

 much now. I do not wish to evade the 

 tax, but I also do not care to pay more 

 than my share. J. H. S. — Pa. 



If they will read the blank, all doubt 

 will be dissolved. Under the head, 

 "Schedule A — Income From Business 

 or Profession," instructions are given 

 for figuring depreciation, as follows: 

 "The amount claimed for wear and tear 

 (depreciation), including obsolescence, 

 should not exceed the original cost of 

 the property (or if acquired prior to 

 March, 1913, the fair market value on 

 that date) divided by its estimated life 

 in years. When the amount of depre- 

 ciation and obsolescence allowed equals 

 the cost of the property (or if acquired 

 prior to March, 1913, the fair market 

 value on that date), no further claim 

 should be made." 



The internal revenue department al- 

 ready has checked the books of a con- 

 siderable number of florists and no 

 doubt eventually will audit the books 

 of everyone in the trade. As the audits 

 progress the charges for depreciation 

 are being brought into conformity with 

 the regulation quoted above. 



GROWERS' GROSS INCOME. 



What is the gross income for a grower 

 who sends all his cut flowers to a com- 

 mission house, the amount of his sales 

 before or after the commission is taken 

 off? This question is puzzling me. 



H. F. W. A.— Mo. 



The subject of depreciation was dis- 

 enssod at length in the article on page 

 17 of The Review for February 10. 



Growers seem to have a great deal 

 of difficulty in understanding what they 

 may do in the way of charging depre- 

 ciation in figuring income tax returns. 



The gross income of the grower is the 

 amount of money he actually receives 

 for his crops; in other words, the total 

 after the commission is deducted. The 

 commission is not received by the 

 grower, but is deducted before the re- 

 ceipts from his sales are remitted. 

 Therefore he could not consider the 

 commission as part of his income. 



