FOREST YIELD TAXES 9 



law and the possible advantages of classification are generally carried 

 on for only a short time. Amendments to the law are usually made 

 to satisfy the objections of a few owners, and amendments seldom 

 receive the publicity given the original law. Frequently the officials 

 charged with the administration of the law are succeeded by men 

 who have no great interest in it or, in some cases, actually oppose it. 

 These men naturally do less to publicize the law than did their 

 predecessors who may have been active in having the law passed. 

 The result is that in many States there are landowners who have 

 never heard of the yield-tax law ; others have heard of it but do not 

 know of its provisions; and still others have misinterpreted thp 

 provisions of the law. 



Even though a landowner may know that he has an opportunity 

 to classify his lands under a yield-tax law he may hesitate to do so 

 because the law has not been adequately explained to him, and he 

 has no way of knowing whether classification would be an advantage 

 or a disadvantage to him. In some States, it is true, efforts are made 

 to keep owners informed of the advantages of classification, but in 

 the majority of the States the owner must work out this information 

 for himself. Thus ignorance of the existence of the yield-tax law, 

 its specific provisions, and its advantages or disadvantages to the 

 owner is one very important reason for the lack of interest and for 

 the relatively small area classified. 



Administrative restraints. — As contrasted to the two laws that 

 provide through legislation for the exemption of all timber from the 

 property tax and for the taxation of all forest products harvested, 

 the volutary yield-tax laws often provide for a cumbersome method 

 of application, inspection, approval, and certification before forest 

 lands can become classified. This in itself may be enough to dis- 

 courage applications if the advantages in classification are not clearly 

 realized. The need of keeping records of forest products harvested, 

 the need of obtaining a permit in advance of harvesting, the posting 

 of bonds or the prepayment of yield taxes, and the procedure of final 

 payment may introduce enough additional red tape to discourage 

 applications. 



The administration of some yield-tax laws has had a discouraging 

 effect on classification. If the land itself remains subject to the 

 general property tax, the assessor may set a value on classified forest 

 land that is higher than the values established for unclassified land. 

 Similar inequities may result if the forest products values on which the 

 yield tax is based are subject to administrative determination. The 

 fear of inequitable assessment of land and forest products values may 

 be strong enough to discourage classification. 



Associated with these restraints is the fear that classification of 

 lands under the yield tax may create a cloud on the owners' title to 

 the land. Whether such a cloud is created or not has not been settled 

 in several States, but the fact that this fear exists is evident from the 

 specific provision in the Idaho law that "Nothing in this Chapter is 

 intended to impair the right of any owner of lands designated as 

 'reforestation lands' to sell and convey the same. * * * " Under 

 some of the State laws a contract is made between the owner and the 

 State and this contract is declared to be a covenant running with the 

 land subjecting future owners to the terms of the contract. Some 



984409— 52, 2 



