90 THE COMMISSION OP INQUIRY, 



APPENDIX 6. 



EXTRACTS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES CONCERNING TAXATION OF FOREST 



PROPERTY. 



Forest Taxation in MassacJmsetts. 

 By Ralph C. Hawley, Instructor in Forestry, Yale Forest School. 



In the spring of 1905 a committee was authorized by the General 

 Court of Massachusetts to investigate the subject of the taxation of 

 forest lands. Under the system of taxation now used, the valuation 

 on a piece of woodland is fixed by the local assessors at intervals of 

 from five to ten years, the figures holding good until the next valua- 

 tion. This valuation is made on both the value of the land and the 

 standing wood, and so is steadily increased with each new valuation, 

 because the amount of wood is constantly growing greater. 



Often the valuation may mount up so high as to make the taxes op- 

 pressive. This leads to early cutting and places a heavy handicap in 

 the way of the landowner who desires to hold this woodlot until it 

 can produce large sized timber. 



The fundamental trouble with the system lies in this method of valua- 

 tion, since, as already explained, both the land and the crop itself are 

 assessed. This is not done in the case of an agricultural crop, for there 

 only the land on which the crop grows is taxed. But the forest crop 

 is taxed, again and again, annually until it is cut. In this way the 

 agricultural crop is unfairly favored at the expense of the forest crop. 



In order to remedy this point, it was suggested that the law be so 

 amended, as to place the tax only on the land and to allow the crop 

 itself to go untaxed, except that the average annual growth or yearly 

 production of the land should bear a tax. Under such a plan the crop 

 would be taxed once, but once only. The valuation would be the same 

 each year, thus enabling the owner to know in advance just what his 

 taxes will be so long as the crop is growing. Since the tax is levied 

 wholly on the value of the land and on the average annual growth, 

 neither of which will vary appreciably for a given area from year to 

 year, the tax will be the same whether the forest crop is young or old, 

 and there will be no incentive in the taxation to cause the owner to 

 harvest his timber prematurely. 



In practice the value of the land for purposes of taxation would be 

 its value as bare or cut-over land, a value fixed by its worth for the 

 production of a wood crop, corresponding in principle to the method of 

 valuing agricultural land. The two classes of land would then be 

 placed on a more equable footing so far as taxation was concerned; 

 though with conditions still somewhat in favor of agricultural crops. 

 Provided that no tax at all should be levied on the crop — not even on 

 the annual growth — equality of treatment would approximately be ob- 

 tained. It is believed that if such an amendment could be passed that 



