016 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
entire property and income, and that specific deductions from the 
tax base are applied proportionately: 
625 Markkaa 
Regular communal income tax 30,7 50% PAS 8 0 Ppp eA ca a Napa bale 2 322 ($8) 
125 
Special communal income tax 30,750 DAO i ek 3) Uh ha TTL B8 ae aaa 78 ($2) 
439 
National income tax 29,625 ~ 4625 Well ass co Nea Ne /LY Ge NAT) Be MN 69 ($2) 
A 360 
National property tax 550,000 ZOO OOO: 5 sl aeeia eit Ie ANS as UR dee 131 ($3) 
AE Gee De ae aes CPU OE Je Lae AD TC na oe 600 ($15) 
On account of the progressive rates and specific deductions allowed 
in computing the above taxes, the result is open to considerable 
variation for the same wood lot, depending on the circumstances of 
the owner. If the special communal tax on property, a temporary 
device, be eliminated, the sum of the other taxes under the above 
assumptions would be 522 markkaa ($13), which is 11 percent of the 
net return from forestry. 
EFFECT OF TAXATION ON THE PRACTICE OF FORESTRY 
The property tax as applied in Finland is subject to the same 
theoretical disadvantage in the case of deferred-yield forests which 
has been demonstrated generally for this form of taxation (pt. 3). 
However, this tax is not a serious deterrent to forestry in Finland, 
partly because the rates are relatively low, being usually much less 
than 0.5 percent as against 1 to 3 percent in the United States. 
Furthermore, destructive cutting of private forest lands has been 
prevented by governmental control, so that in general private forests 
are in a productive state and excessive deferment of income is not 
necessary. 
The income tax, also, as it is based not on actual but on theoretical 
income and is payable annually like the property tax, might be a 
hardship to forests not yielding a regular income. However, ‘the rates 
appear to be moderate, and the organization of forests and farm wood- 
lots is such that this form of taxation is not unduly burdensome to 
forestry. 
The chief difficulties in connection with the taxation of forest lands 
in Finland come from defects in administration that affect all types 
of property. The difficulties in the determination of normal income 
and of property values have been only partly overcome. The local 
tax boards do not always rely on expert assistants but are influenced 
by the economic interests of the dominant political group. There is 
unnecessary duplication in tax administration on account of the 
requirement of separate returns for the communal and national 
income taxes and separate determination of the same facts by the two 
independent boards. ‘There is considerable variation in rates because 
of the different expenditures required in the several local districts to 
maintain necessary governmental services. Although these prob- 
lems are similar to those attending tax administration in the United 
States, there appears to be no forest-tax problem that is peculiar to 
forests alone, owing largely to the way in which private forest lands 
are owned and Ned 
