492 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
It has been noted that, leaving out of consideration the temporary 
taxes imposed by the Federal Government, the principal tax on 
forests in Switzerland is the property tax levied for cantonal and local 
purposes. ‘This is an annudl tax and must be paid regardless of actual 
revenues received, just as in the case of the property tax in the United © 
States. Many of the private forests in Switzerland are so small that 
it is impossible to manage them on an annual sustained-yield basis. 
Why does this tax not call forth the same complaint as the American 
property tax? 
In the first place, the rates of the Swiss property tax are com- 
paratively low. Based on actual value, they are generally far below 
the rates commonly imposed in the United States. 
Second, the values at which the forests are assessed are based on 
permanent forestry use and are generally moderate even from this 
viewpoint. In practice assessed values are ordinarily less than 
actual values, and much less than the values which the same forests 
might command if destructive utilization were permitted and the 
owner could plan to convert his forest when market conditions for 
the product were favorable. They leave out of consideration the 
fact that the actual value of a given forest may reflect, in addition to 
the money income, various intangible incomes in the form of prestige, 
consciousness of public service, and the like. 
Finally, the larger private forests are managed so as to yield income 
either annually or at fairly short periods, while the very small parcels 
which cannot be handled in this way are usually owned in connection 
with farm or other property which yields an annual income. ‘There- 
fore there is no large scale problem of deferment of income from 
forest property, as in the United States under present conditions. 
It is not intended to imply that there is no complaint at all with 
respect to the taxation of forest lands in Switzerland, or that the situ- 
ation there is whol y satisfactory. The large number of independent 
tax systems of the Cantons, applied in a country that is smaller than 
the combined States of Massachusetts and Vermont, naturally gives 
rise to disturbing inequalities of tax burden between neighboring 
properties in different tax districts. The question of equitable 
assessment for the annual property tax is by no means entirely solved 
in all of the Cantons. There are no specific tax concessions designed 
to lighten the burden on new plantations, as in France. In certain 
Cantons, such as Vaud, there is uncertainty as to the method of 
appraisal for transfer and inheritance taxes, the choice of method 
being left to the discretion of local commissions. The way is open to 
the use of appraisals which are in effect inventories of the material in 
the forest, treating all of the standing timber as if available for 
immediate conversion. The value obtained on this assumption may 
be double or triple the assessment of the same properties for the prop- 
erty tax based on capitalization of current net income. The use of 
such appraisals in certain cases according to the ruling of the par- 
ticular commission concerned is inequitable, and if a property happens 
to be overvalued in this manner and also subject to high rates on 
account of inheritance in indirect line, the resulting tax may be 
confiscatory. 
Forests as a class, however, appear to be moderately taxed in 
relation to income and value, and in a number of Cantons they are 
accorded special consideration beyond that granted to other real 
i eee ee 
