FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 509 
at the value it has as a sustained source of income under efficient 
management. Prior to the passage of this provision, it was claimed 
that forest assessments were often made on the basis of immediate 
realization of the timber value rather than on the basis of sustained 
production. This same section of the law also provides for regulations 
concerning the valuation of forest property, which have for their 
objective the securing of better assessments (279, p. 228). 
It is generally conceded in Norway, by State authorities, profes- 
sional foresters, and private individuals, that the taxation of income 
from forest property is best accomplished by means of a tax on income 
when actually realized. Yet the majority of the tax law committee 
of 1929, although stating that they agreed to that principle, recom- 
mended a tax law based, as in the existing law, on assumed income, 
but with the improvements passed in 1930 in the matter of assess- 
ments. 
The reason for the retention of the assumed-income principle is 
that the present precarious position of many communes prohibits any 
change in the tax system which may interrupt the steady flow of 
revenues from which to meet their heavy expenditures connected 
with the payment of interest on loans, repayment of debts, and other 
heavy costs. In Norway the welfare of the communes must take 
precedence over the welfare of the forest owner, just as generally the 
public interest in stable tax revenues takes precedence over the 
interest of any individual class of taxpayers. 
FINLAND” 
GOVERNMENTAL AND TAX STRUCTURE 
Finland is a sovereign republic with a central government, which is 
financed very largely by indirect taxes—principally customs duties— 
and by profits from State enterprises. Its ordinary receipts in recent 
years are given in table 147. As indicated in this table, direct taxes, 
practically all levied on either income or property, were about one- 
eighth of the ordinary gross revenue in 1928 and about one-seventh in 
1930. They are undoubtedly a much greater part of the net revenue. 
It should be noted that the income from national properties, which is 
a large item in the table, and the income from public services as well, 
represent the gross receipts and are consequently offset by correspond- 
ing expenditures. Therefore these items do not, like the other items 
in this table, represent revenues available for meeting the direct 
functions of the national government. 
TaBLE 147.—Ordinary revenue receipts by sources, national government of 
Finland,! 1928 and 1930 ? 
Source 1928 | 1930 
1,000 1,000 
National properties (lands, forests, railroads, buildings, | markkaa {1,000 dollars} markkaa_ | 1,000 dollars 
CanalSMeces) eames oy he ek i ee ee 1, 655, 559 41, 720 1, 458, 183 36, 746 
Direct taxes (chiefly on income and property) ----------- 566, 463 14, 275 604, 571 15, 235 
Indirect taxes (customs and excise)-__..-_-_-------_---- 1, 604, 655 40,437 | 1,615, 518 40, 711 
Miscellaneous taxes (stamps, etc.)--_.---_-------------- 306, 356 7, 720 212, 485 5, 355 
IRD IGISehivi COS ee eae ee ee 209, 950 5, 291 230, 313 5, 804 
Miscellaneousievenues. 2.222222 2s le ee 132, 708 3, 344 154, 377 | 3, 890 
ING eal Eee ree SEN clin a ie ee at ae eed Fe ee » 4, 475, 691 112,787 | 4, 275, 447 107, 741 
1 All conversions of the Finnish markka (SMX) in this section are at the 1933 par value in gold of $0.0252, 
2 Source of data: From (282, p. 247). 
82 The information in regard to forest taxation in Finland, unless otherwise mentioned, was obtained from 
Eino Saari, professor of forest economics, University of Helsingfors. 
