418 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U.S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
revenue from the levies on timber, along with those on oil, g gas, salt, 
shell, sand, and gravel, are allocated to the producing counties up to a 
maximum of $200,000 in any 1 year. The remainder of the revenue 
coes to the State severance tax fund. The county quotas are dis- 
Oe 
tributed to the school districts and other local jurisdictions according 
to the amount of ad valorem property tax payable to each, as shown 
by the last complete assessment roll. 
he one cansas tax law followed very closely the Louisiana law in 
force at the time of its enactment. The Arkansas law, as most 
recently 2 aneideal 1929), provides for a flat tax of 7 cents per thousand 
board feet of timber severed, to be reported and collected quarterly, 
and for the allocation of two-thirds to the common-school fund of the 
State and one-third to the producing county, half of the latter to gc 
to the highway funds and half to the common-school funds of the 
county.” 
In both States the producer is required to pay the tax in the first 
instance. Jf the producer is not the owner he is required and 
empowered to withhold the amount of the tax from his royalty 
payment to the owner, whether such payment be In money or in 
product. Furthermore, the Louisiana law makes the owner of the 
property from which the resource was severed ultimately liable for any 
delinguent severance tax. Such delinquent tax becomes a first lien 
and mortgage on the property. 
Whether or not a severance tax may be regarded as justifiable 
depends on the conditions under which it is applied. In an undevel- 
oped district where the property-tax burden is well under that which 
property in general is normally called upon to bear, the additional 
contribution which such property is called upon to make may not be 
unjust. If the resource is being destructively exploited, the severance 
tax would appear to be justifiable, even when property-tax rates are 
normal. No exception seems to be called for in the case of timber, 
either old growth or second growth, simply because it is a renewable 
resource. The fact that the forest is being destructively cut means 
that renewal is not a responsibility of the owner and that, if a fortui- 
tous young growth appears, it will almost inevitably be long delayed 
and of inferior quality. During the recovery period such a forest will 
contribute little or nothing in taxes to the support of community 
functions and may involve the community in heavy protection 
expenses to keep it from becoming a menace to other property. A 
severance tax limited to undeveloped districts with low property-tax 
rates or to resources being opereted destructively may therefore be 
regarded as a just contribution. However, it would generally be 
difficult in actual tax administration to distinguish between undevel- 
oped and normal districts or between forest properties which were 
being destructively operated and those which were being converted 
to forestry use. 
A severance tax levied on timber, young or old, forming a part of an 
organized forestry enterprise would be unwarranted, since none of the 
reasons usually put forward to justify this form of taxation would 
apply. The Arkansas law as it now stands is a particular case in 
point, and also the Louisiana law to only a somewhat less degree. 
Thus the Arkansas law places an extra tax burden on timber cut from 
any and all forests—even those under annual sustained-yield manage- 
v% Castle’s Annotated Supplement to Arkansas Statutes, secs. 9793a-9793q. 
