38 CIRCULAR 8 9 9, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



DISPOSITION OF TAX RECEIPTS 



The tax on bare-land values in most States is paid to the town, 

 county, parish, or other local government in the same way as general 

 property taxes are paid. One exception is Massachusetts in which 

 one-tenth of the land tax goes to the State and the balance to the 

 towns. 



In eight States yield-tax receipts are retained by the county or other 

 local taxing unit or are returned to them. In three States yield-tax 

 receipts are split between the State and the local unit. In Massachu- 

 setts one-tenth goes to the State and the balance to the towns; in 

 Michigan one-half to the State and one-half to the county ; and in 

 Mississippi one-third to the State and two-thirds to the county. In 

 Louisiana receipts go to the forestry commission; in Missouri to the 

 State forest cropland fund used in reimbursing counties ; and in Wis- 

 consin yield taxes equal to the amounts paid to counties go to the 

 State and the balance to the counties. Louisiana is thus the only 

 State that makes no provisions for the return of at least a part of the 

 yield tax to the local governments. 



ELEMENTS OF A GOOD YIELD-TAX LAW 



A SINGLE MODEL LAW NOT DESIRABLE 



A study of the yield-tax laws shows that some are more effective than 

 others, as measured by the area of forest land classified or the attitude 

 of forest landowners toward the different laws. A study of the 

 separate provisions of the different laws helps to explain why some 

 have been more effective than others. It might be hoped that from 

 this analysis a model law could be developed that would serve most 

 satisfactorily in all States. Such a model, however, cannot be con- 

 structed. There are differences in both the physical and economic 

 environments of the States and in the conception of the purpose to 

 be served by a yield-tax law that rule out any attempt to secure uni- 

 formity for all States. 



Among the environmental differences one of the most important 

 is the character and ownership of the timber resource. In one State 

 stocking may be heavy, timber may be mature or merchantable in 

 large quantities, ownership may be concentrated in large industrial 

 holdings, and forest ownership and manufacturing operations may 

 be closely integrated. In another State stands may be sparse and 

 relatively little timber may be merchantable for many years, owner- 

 ship may be in scattered small holdings-, and forest holdings may be 

 integrated with farm ownership. The specific provisions of a yield- 

 tax law that would suit one set of conditions might be wholly inap- 

 plicable to the other. 



Another difference is the relative importance of forest land in the 

 tax base. In some States forest land may constitute a large part of 

 total property values, and any law that disturbed the present method 

 of taxing these lands would have serious effects on tax revenues. In 

 other States the value of forest land may be a relatively small part 

 of the tax base and a decline in the revenue from forest land would 

 have little effect on total tax revenues. Even more serious are the 



