Conclusion 
In examining forest management from a busi- 
ness point of view, the practical significance of taxa- 
tion is probably greater than that of any other eco- 
nomic institution. This is particularly true in the 
South, where most of the commercial forests are 
privately owned. In speaking of taxes in general, 
Ciriacy-Wantrup (1959) stated,"... the tax system 
has highly significant but unintended, unrecognized 
and socially undesirable effects upon conservation 
decisions of private planning agents." In an attempt 
to alleviate some of these effects for the forestry 
sector, society has made the decision to modify 
many of the traditional taxation precepts in order to 
better address the unique aspects of forestry invest- 
ments. 
These modifications have been well accepted 
by southern woodland owners. Many have tailored 
their forestry investments and management deci- 
sions to the fiscal certainty provided by the special 
forest tax laws. Unexpected tax changes could ren- 
der established forestry programs completely inval- 
id from an investment standpoint. Likewise, the 
threat of a tax change could discourage even the 
most prudent manager from investing in an other- 
wise presently sound and profitable forest practice. 
This picture suggests that the most important issue 
in forest taxation for southern forests is neither the 
rate structure nor form of particular taxes but rather 
tax stability. 
References Cited 
Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V. 1959. 
Social objectives of conservation of natural re- 
sources with particular reference to taxation of 
forests. In: Proceedings of the conference on 
taxation and conservation of privately owned 
timber; 1959 January 27-28; Eugene, OR. Eu- 
gene, OR: University of Oregon, Bureau of Busi- 
ness Research: 1-15. 
Duerr, W.A. 1960. 
Fundamentals of forestry economics. New 
York: McGraw-Hill. 579 p. 
Fairchild, F.R., and Associates. 1935. 
Forest taxation in the United States. Misc. Publ. 
218. Washington, DC: Department of Agricul- 
ture. 
120 
Forest Industries Committee on Timber Valuation 
and Taxation. 1972-84. 
Timber Tax Journal, vols. 8-20. 
Forest Industries Committee on Timber Valuation 
and Taxation. 1984. 
Timber Tax Journal. 20. 360 p. 
Gardner, A.B.; Olson, S.C.; Haney, H.L., Jr.; 
Siegel, W.C. 1984. 
Election by forest estates of certain Federal es- 
tate tax provisions. Journal of Agricultural Taxa- 
tion and Law. 6(1): 400-428. 
Gregory, G.R. 1972. 
Forest resource economics. New York: Ronald 
Press. 548 p. 
Hall, R.C.; Nelson, A.Z.; Williams, E.T. 1959. 
The difference between a forest yield tax and a 
forest severance tax. Journal of Forestry. 57 (1): 
38-39. 
Hickman, C.A. 1983. 
Use-valuation eases property tax burden. For- 
est Farmer. 43(2): 16-17. 
McGee, G.T.; Haney H.L., Jr.; Siegel, W.C. 1982. 
State income tax implications for nonindustrial 
private forestry in the South. Southern Journal 
of Applied Forestry. 6(4): 206-10. 
McGee, G.T.; Haney, H.L., Jr.; Siegel, W.C. 1983. 
How State income taxes can affect forestry in- 
vestments. Forest Farmer. 42(4): 8-9, 18. 
Olsen, S.C.; Haney, H.L., Jr. 1980. 
The impact of State death taxes on the private 
nonindustrial forest landowner in the South. 
Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(2): 
88-94. 
Siegel, W.C. 1978a. 
Federal income and death taxes--implications 
for the noncorporate forest landowner. In: Pro- 
ceedings of the Northwest Private Forestry Fo- 
rum; 1978 March: Portland, OR. Portland OR: 
Western Forestry Center: 53-56. 
Siegel, W.C. 1978b. 
Historical development of Federal income tax 
treatment of timber. In: Haney, Harry L., Jr.; 
Gunter, John E., eds. Proceedings of the forest 
