390 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
undertaxation by requiring the beneficiaries to accept a degree of 
public control not imposed on ordinary taxpayers. It has been found 
exceedingly difficult to strike a balance between the concessions and 
offsetting requirements so as to be fair both to the public in general 
and to the forest owner. In optional laws particularly it has been 
found difficult to offer a reasonable concession to the owner that is 
sufficiently attractive to overcome his hesitancy to submit his prop- 
erty to the requirements. 
The problem of public finance which a universal application of the 
yield tax to private forest property would present has not been faced 
in existing laws. In the practical application of these laws the col- 
lection of yield taxes in a substantial amount has been postponed so 
far in the future and their amount has been so difficult to predict, 
that it has not seemed necessary to be greatly concerned with the 
cost of collection, the distribution of the revenue, or with its stabiliza- 
tion by setting up reserves for years of abnormally low production. 
In most of the existing laws there are no financial provisions whatever, 
except those specifying the distribution of the yield tax. It was 
apparently understood at the time of passage of such laws that their 
application would be so greatly restricted that their effect on public 
finances would be negligible, at least for a long time. 
This understanding has been proved to be correct. Information 
regarding the amount of revenue derived from the forest-yield tax was 
obtained from 12 of the 14 States having such laws in force. Of these 
12 States, 6 reported that no yield tax had ever been received by either 
State or local governments. This was in spite of the fact that the 
present yield-tax laws had been in effect in these States for from 4 
to 21 years. During the last 3 fiscal years (1931, 1932, and 1933), the 
Wisconsin yield-tax law has resulted in the collection of only $1,125.72 
in yield taxes—this is at the rate of a little more than $0.001 per 
classified acre per year. During the same period the Michigan yield- 
tax law applicable to commercial forests produced a tota! of $138.98 in 
yield-tax revenues; previous to this period only $2.50 in forest-yield 
tax had been paid. The Massachusetts yield tax produced about $20 
in 1931. This is the only yield tax collected during the 11 years the 
Massachusetts law has been in effect. The Ohio yield tax produced 
$61.54 during the 8 years it has been in effect. The Oregon yield tax 
has produced $502.89, that wasin 1932. In Washington $300 in yield- 
tax revenue has been collected. In each of these 5 States, Michigan, 
Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, and Washington, the yield- tax revenues 
have amounted to less than $0.001 per acre in those few years when 
any yield tax at all was received, and in Wisconsin the return has been 
but very slightly better. 
A few States have endeavored to compensate local units of govern- 
ment for loss of tax revenue through classification of land under 
special forest-tax laws by payments out of State funds. In Pennsy]l- 
vania the State pays the road and school districts each $0.02 per year 
for each acre classified. In Michigan the county, and in Wisconsin 
the town, is paid $0.10 per year by the State for each acre classified, 
but these liberal contributions to local revenues are intended to be 
reimbursed at least in part from the proceeds of the yield tax. In 
Wisconsin the State must be fully reimbursed before the local units 
19 The Wisconsin forest-crop law imclidos various provisions relating to county-owned forest land which 
have no direct bearing on the taxation of privately owned lands and are therefore not discussed in this report. 
