550 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
and if the time of collection, while reasonably adjusted to fit the 
income flow of the taxpayer, were nevertheless fixed and certain. 
Barring extreme circumstances such as loss of income through crop 
failure or similar causes, kindness is rarely done to a negligent or dis- 
tressed taxpayer by permitting his taxes to accumulate. The prac- 
tice only intensifies his difficulties, and at the same time creates embar- 
rassing problems for the vovernment. The taxes must eventually be 
paid, and if the taxpayer is solvent he should obtain credit from other 
sources than the government. If he is really insolvent, the govern- 
ment should know that fact, and failure to sell his property will not 
save him from foreclosure to meet his obligations.® 
There are of course times when a solvent taxpayer is temporarily 
without liquid assets and would be willing to pay a high rate of interest 
to get his tax payment deferred. Ordinarily other avenues of credit 
should be open to him, but to meet all possibilities the government 
should probably permit some extension in the payment of the tax on 
real estate. Under conditions prevailing in most States, the exten- 
sion should not exceed 1 year. In other States economic conditions 
may necessitate a redemption period longer than 1 year, in order not 
to impose unreasonable hardships on taxpayers subjected to hazards 
likely to occur from time to time. In any event, the period should 
not be unduly long; nothing should interfere with the central purpose 
in view, namely, the setting up of a clearly defined procedure leading 
to ultimate loss of title because of tax delinquency, with specific time 
limits definitely enforced. Neither the taxing jurisdiction nor the 
taxpayer should be led into the practice of substituting tax liens for 
tax payments. It is true that in the case of landowners, the land 
stands as security, but so does it if the credit is obtained from other 
sources. The taxing authority should not pms. an indefinite and 
lax policy of tax collection that would lead the taxpayer to take it for 
granted that the government will in effect act as a credit agency to 
carry him over a period of temporary inability to pay his taxes or to 
serve his convenience when he may want to use his funds or credit for 
some purpose other than the payment of taxes due. 
The cause of good government would be served and benefit would 
accrue to all groups of taxpayers, and especially to the owners of forest 
property, if a procedure could be adopted that would cut through the 
maze of tradition, historic safeguards, and legal technicalities that 
now confuse and delay tax collections and that would provide a single 
course that is short and clear and certain. 
This question has recently been studied by a committee of the 
National Tax Association, two members of which committee are mem- 
bers of the research staff which has made the present investigation of 
forest taxation. This committee, in a preliminary report presented 
to the twenty-fifth National Tax Conference at Columbus, Ohio, 
September 15, 1932, suggested a model plan of tax collection which 
is clearly based on sound principles. The plan is not meant to take 
the place of other nonconflicting collection machinery which has been 
found highly satisfactory, like the alias tax warrant in Connecticut 
and Massachusetts. The plan is meant to supplement, not to sup- 
plant, such local collection methods as have achieved a fair measure 
of success. This plan is mentioned herewith as illustrative of the 
56 For tax-collection practices which are directed especially to the reduction of delinquency in times of 
sconomic depression, refer to (285). 
