FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 101 
‘“fcash”’, “true”, “‘money”’, “‘fair’”’, ‘true and just”, or “market” 
value, or the “value which could ordinarily be obtained therefor at 
private sale.” These adjectives are of significance only as adding 
emphasis. They do not change the meaning of the term ‘‘value.”’ 
Thus, in Rhode Island, where the law provides for assessment at 
“fair cash value” , the supreme court has said: 
The standard of ue for the purpose of taxation * * * is the price 
which the property would probably bring in a transaction in a fair market between 
a willing seller and a willing purchaser.”! 
ine New Hampshire Supreme Court has held that the “‘just val- 
e” provided by law 
is the market value, or the price which the property will bring in a fair market 
after reasonable efforts have been made to find the purchaser who will give the 
highest price for it.”# 
Market value is defined by the United States Treasury Department 
as ‘that amount which would induce a willing seller to sell and a 
willing buyer to purchase’”’ (52, p. 58). 
The United States Supreme Court has added weight to the meaning 
of the term ‘‘value”’ as used in State tax statutes by saying: 
It is a cardinal rule, which should never be forgotten, that whatever property 
is worth for purposes of income and sale, it is worth for the purpose of taxation.” 
There is little occasion for misunderstanding or dispute as to the 
meaning of value in the property tax laws. The obstacles in the 
path of property tax assessment arise, not chiefly from confusion as 
to the meaning of value, but rather from the practical difficulties of 
ascertaining the value in any given case. 
It must never be forgotten that assessment is an act of ay rehges 
an act of judgment by the assessor. His judgment should be guided 
by all the available facts which may serve to throw light upon the 
value of the particular parcel under consideration. 
The information which is most useful to anyone who is called upon 
to appraise a property is knowledge of the considerations realized in 
sales of comparable properties and of the factors affecting those 
considerations, as well as of the conditions affecting the value of the 
property in question. If this knowledge is joined with an under- 
standing of valuation principles and sound judgment, the appraiser 
is In a position to arrive at a correct result. 
On the other hand, the mechanical and unintelligent use of sales 
considerations, even when the sales involve the same kind of property 
as that which 1s being assessed, often leads to incorrect results. One 
parcel of real estate cannot be valued at the price realized in a free 
market sale of another parcel in the same vicinity, unless the two 
properties are similar with respect to the different factors affecting 
value, or unless such differences as may appear in these factors are 
in opposite directions and offset each other. Even the sale of the 
identical property may give a value different from that sought because 
conditions may have changed during the time intervening between 
the date of the sale and that of the appraisal. As stated by the 
"at Aspegren v. Taz Assessors of ee of Newport, 125 Atl. 213. 
22 Company v. Gilford, 67 N. H. 
23 Adams Express Co. v. Ohio Stace. Auditor, 166 U.S. 220. 
