514 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
TAXATION OF A FARM WOODLOT 
The following is a hypothetical example of the application of the 
tax system to a farm woodlot located in the southern part of Finland. 
Assume that the farm in question inciudes a woodlot of 100 hectares, 
which has been classified by a forester according to the general classi- 
fication of the forest lands in the commune, as follows: 
Hectares Hectares 
@lasseb te Gs lc ek Sea a, ieee pee LO Gl ass pet or ea es al ae 10 
Gla ssi iss sane Weg hee ar Pic 1 eae 30 —— 
Olas Sr ies wl es 2 Se ire eee 40 ‘Petals: 2t x eyes Mer 15h ee eee 100 
CO SE SPiN AR a NERS Dip fs NE yd 10 
The above classification is based wholly on the quality of the soil 
and is independent of the actual stand. 
The average net return in quantity of timber (solid measure without 
bark) from the different soil qualities in this part of Finland is deter- 
mined by law (regardless of the actual growth in the individual case) 
as follows: 
Cubic meters Cubic meters 
per hectare per hectare 
(Cr ESS) ey Nii inl ae Nilaeircs See BEES Se A QiliClass 4k orek ie 0 dee ieee 1.0 
CO) PAs 4 ae © Seles oh ies a Rn aay Oo OE Class is ake: ce. per a= Sato <5 
CWlaisciSret rae er peel h eke a Tee 250 
The communal tax board is supposed to have determined the aver- 
age stumpage price per cubic meter for the zone in which this farm is 
located at 25 markkaa. Overhead and maintenance costs are a!so 
assumed to have been estimated by the board at 10 markkaa per hec- 
tare. Thus the net return in markkaa per hectare is determined for 
the different soil classes as in table 148. The net return of the whole 
wood.ot is then ca!culated as in table 149. 
TABLE 148.—Determination of net return per hectare, by soil classes } 
Overhead 
Stumpage . costs and |, 
Soil class Growth | price per Jota miele mainte- aigirolarn 
cubic meter| P& Rectare | nance cost | P& ectare 
per hectare 
Cubic 
meter Markkaa Markkea Markkaa Markkaa 
fe aera gegen Sees 8S nc Re Se RN Eom 4.0 25 100.0 10 90. G 
PARIS EO EOE SA ENED ie OPE Fae Clee CU ee RIE 3.0 25 75.0 10 65. 0 
Oe te at I Sh AE pes ge ee eh 2.0 25 50. 0 16 40.0 
LE Ip Ra la el a ab wh oe SRE eS td 1.0 25 25.0 10 15.0 
Ey UE SD ay oe 1 Le LOPS ee Nice eR SAS -& 25 19455 10 25 
1 Hypothetical example of forest taxation in Finland. 
TaBLE 149.—Determination of total net return, by soil classes } 
Area of | Net return Nee 
Soil class each per soil 
class hectare ap 
Hectare- Markkaa Markkaa 
10 90. 0 900 
Die Rek See PRESS ee seabed Rees 30 65. 0 1, 950 
Deh i Bh a a ee se 2 Bo ede a ge 40 40. 0 1, 600 
Go hee Se Eas SES hs SOE ee eee eA ne a ee. MA aS Bes eee eee 10 15.0 150 
Gus sces 8 AA eS Ae Bee See Bea hee Ue, bes Pe eet eee 10 2.5 25 
1 Hypothetical example of forest taxation in Finland. 
