Inequalities in the tax burden borne by agricultural lands in Montana
by Howard H Lord
A THESIS submitted to the Graduate Committee In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science in Agricultural Economics
Montana State University
© Copyright by Howard H Lord (1936)
Abstract:
1. The laws of Montana require that, Tell taxable property must be assessed at its full cash value", and
the State Board of Equalization has been established with the authority, "to do all things neceaeary to
secure a fair, Just and equitable valuation of all taxable property among counties, between different
classes of property and between Individual tax payers*.
2. Inequaities arising from unequal levies among counties and school district are as damaging and as
unjust as those arising from unequal assessments. The tax per acre' ensures the combined effect of these
two sources of inequalities.
3. The only "fair, Just and equitable" system of assessing and taxing agricultural land is a system based
upon the productivity and hence upon the tax paying ability of the land.
4. The most important inequalities are among the grades of land, fourth grade farm land Is
overburdened more then any other grade with a tax amounting to more then 400 per cent of its tax
paying ability; third grade fair land is second with a tax amounting to about 330 per cent of Its ability
to pay. Second grade farm land carries its Just burden of taxes while first grade farm' land pays only
about 75 per cent of its ability to pay. With the exception of first grade grazing all grades of grazing
land carry a tax burden averaging about 250 per cent of their ability to pay. first grade grazing land
pays a tax that is 175 per cent of Ite tax paying ability.
5. The second most Important group of inequalities is that among the counties. The tax on third grade
farm land varies from 10 cents per acre in Toole and Blaine Counties to as high as 32 cents per acre in
Daniels and Judith Basin Counties.
6. There are less important yet significant inequalities among individual properties, among school
districts, among ownership classes and among lands of the same grade devoted to different usee.
7. Generally speaking, inequalities are due to the following causes: (1) lack of an adequate system of
assessing farm lands; (2) failure on the part of government officials to appreciate the significance of tax
Inequalities; (3) lack of information and data In the hands of land owners upon which they might base a
claim for tax readjustment; (4) over expansion of social services in areas of low grade soil; and (5) over
capitalization of farm and ranch reel estate.
6. Inequalities in the tax burden ere one of the causes contributing to 'the large amount of farm tax
delinquency in Montana.
6. Equalisation of tax burdens is a necessary part of a constructive land utilization program because in
many Instances the present taxes are higher than the land could pay in any conceivable type of
production.
10. The results of this study indicate the need, in Montana, of a system of assessing and taxing farm
lands on the basis of their ability to pay.
11. Two plans have been proposed, both based upon a scientific soil survey and an objective
determination of the best wee of the land, by which Montana farm lands might be assessed and taxed
according to their ability to pay. INKQUALfTIHS IN TRK TAX BURDEN BORNE
BY AOPIOUf TURAL UNDf1 IN OMTAffA
by
iO AFfD I . LORD
A TtESIS
ubnltie d to the Graduate Oomnltto e In
p a r tia l f u l f i l l en t o f thu r e q u ir e -entfl
fo r the agree o f a s te r o f Solenoe
In .g r lo u ltu r fil !roonoT>lee a t
ontane S ta te C ollege
Approved:
KaJor fork
"i
r s d u - i t e Jo
I Ite e
OZeman, ontana
June, lt'36
N 2,1 &
V_8SA->
c-o |p . 2-
—8 —
TABLK Ot CONTENTS
P»«e
Swraary and Jono lueion a ............................................................................................
3
S ection
I.
I n tr o d u c tio n .....................
&
. urpoee o f Imreatlpiatlon ...........................................................................
II.
e t iod o f
6
''ie I n v e s t i g a t i o n ......................................................................
L'be , Intnna
o il
urvey— he tueia fo r eaourito,', Irm u a ll t i e s
9
o t a .....................
ource o f
Li I ta t lone
f
a te
a
12
..................................................................................
13
I I I . Value nnd Tax Paying a b ility o f d if fe r e n t Jredea o f 'ontana
l a n d .....................................................................................................................
13
IV.
17
xnalyala o f I n e q u a l i t i e s ...............................................................................
.j
1 1 **
1ne u t ilit ie s
mong. Grades o f land
.....................................................
I n e q u a litie s
moriK In d ivid u al ' r o p e r t l e e ................ .......................
In q u a lit ie s
.reong
I n e q u a litie s
^reong C ounties
I n e q u a litie s
raon#> Ownership C l a s s e s ..................................................
cl.ool D l s t r i c t e ...................................
......................
22
. . . . . . . . . .
25
ImennaIitl# # Het een lands Devoted to Farming and Lhose
Devoted to J m zW ; ...........................................
V.
VI.
o c ia l and
conomio
The County
'be S tn te
Ian
Ian
. . . . . . . . . . . .
30
.
v5
........................................
37
.....................................................................
54877
27
30
r’fe c to o f I n e q u a l i t i e s .....................................
’ ro o s a ls fo r : e t t ln g Ip a S^ote o f
see s Ir, end laxln g
Far
nmia According to h e ir A b ility to ay . . . . . . .
19
38
-* 3 •
SUfv ARY A"D OO 'JIJJQIOiff'
I.
The Iawe of Montana require th a t, " a ll taxab le property must
be aeaeeeed a t I te f u l l oesh value" , and the S ta te
tiard o f
qu elI z a U on
haa been e sta b lis h e d with the a u th o r ity , "to do a l l th in g s necessary to
secure a f a i r , Just and e q u ita b le v a lu a tio n o f a l l taxable property among
c o u n t ie s , between d if fe r e n t c la s s e s o f property and between In d ivid u al
tax payers".
S.
I n e q u a litie s a r is in g from unequal le v ie s among c o u n ties and
sch ool d i s t r i c t
a ssessm en ts.
are a s damaging and as un just as those a r is in g fr o
The tax ;»r ecri
unequal
ensures the Co b in ed e f f e c t o f th ese two
sources of I n e q u a litie s .
3.
The on ly " fa ir , Just and eq u itab le" system o f a s s e s s in g and t
Ing e g r l e u l t r a l land I s a e y ste
based upon th e p r o d u c tiv ity and he Ce
upon the tax paying a b i l i t y o f t e land.
4.
The most Important in e q u a litie s are among the gredae o f land,
fourth grade farm land la overburdened more than any o th er grade with
R tax av Minting to more th^n 400
er cent o f U s tax paying a b i l i t y ; th ird
grade fair? land la second w ith a tax amounting to about 330 per cent of
i t s a b i l i t y to ray.
, econd grade f a r
ta x es w h ile f i r s t grade fa r
a b i l i t y to -.viy.
land o a r rle e Ita lu s t burden o f
land pays only about 75 per c e n t of I ts
H th the excep tion of f i r s t grade grazing a l l grades o f
grazing land carry a tax burden averaging about 850 per c e n t of th eir
a b il it y to
<ty.
F ir s t
rade grazin g land pays a tax th at I s 175 per cen t
o f I t s ta x • ayIng a b i l i t y .
5.
Taa second -rost Important group o f I n e q u a litie s Ie th at among
-
the o o u n tle e .
The tax on th ird
*
-
yade fanr land v a r ies f r o
10 oents >er
acre In Toole nod Ilaln e Gountiem to aa high sis 32 een te per acre in
D aniels and Jud ith
6.
a e in C ou n ties.
There are Ieee im -ortant y e t s ig n if ic a n t in e q u a lit ie s among
in d iv id u a l p r o p e r tie s, among eohool d i s t r i c t s , among ownership elms*#* and
among lands of the same grade devoted to d if fe r e n t u see.
7.
(I )
G enerally s n e a k in g ,in e q u a litie s are due to the follow ing cau ses)
lac.< o f an adequate system o f a se e sa ln g f a r
lands; (2) f a ilu r e on the
part o f govern e n t o f f i c i a l s to ap r ee lE tc th e a ig n if loan ee o f tax ln e a u a litie a ; (3) lack o f inform ation and data In th e
soda of land owners upon
which they might h ae a claim fo r tax readjustm ent; (4) over expanalon o f
s o c ia l s e r v ic e s in areas o f low grade s o i l ; and (9) over c a p ita liz a t io n o f
far" and rencn r e e l e s t a t e .
8.
to
I n e q u a litie s in the ta x burden ere one of the cau ses co n trib u tin g
e Iar e a ount o f farm tax delinquency in Mont ana.
6.
q u a llz a tlo n of tax burdens la a necessary part o f a c o n str u c tiv e
land u t i l i z a t i o n program because in many lnetanoee the
r e s e n t taxes are
h igh er than the land could pay in any con ceivab le type o f produ ction.
10.
ie r e s u lt s o f t h is study ludloa tr the need, In
on tana, o f a
system o f a s s e s s in g and taxin g farm lands on the b a s is o f t * lr a b il it y to
pay.
11. Two plans hare been proposed, both based upon a s c i e n t i f i c e o ll
survey and an o b je c tiv e determ ination o f the b est use o f th e lend, by which
ontana fa r - landa might be a sse sse d and taxed according to th e ir a b il it y
to pay.
IHF ^LTTIr-:- IN f!:K TAX. HKRDUK GBUK BY AORIOULTCRAL I A
I.
. I:: 'OW'.NA
I !/TfiODTtCTION
The amount o f ta x e s paid by Montana taxpayers has more than treb led
in the p e st s ix te e n y e a r s .
During the same period the population o f the
s t a t e has remained alm ost sta tio n a r y and property values have decreased by
400,000,000 d o lla r s . {£)
Tie la r g e s t part o f th is increased revenue Is
erlved from ta x es on the m ile o f g a s o lin e , liq u o r , and o t or com m odities,
h it, s lt h t h is in crea se in s*iles ta x es th ere has bean no corresponding de­
crea se in the property ta x .
ronerty ta x e s have remained the same, in
s p it e o f the f a c t th a t the value o f the property has decreased by 4 0 0 ,(X0 ,0 0 0
d o lla r s .
What does t h is
I t means th la i
ean to the owner o f a g r ic u ltu r a l land In Montana.
As a consumer he must pay h is share of the Increased s a le s
ta x es and as a property own^r he must contin ue to carry th e same burden o f
property ta x .
far* Inoo » .
tax
oreover, he must pay t h is increased tax frcm a decreased
"In 1933 i t took nearly tw ice as much wheat to pay the average
er acre on
ontuna farm r e a l e s t te as i t took In 1913, three tim es as
uch lamb, and about one and a h a lf tin e a a s much w o o l" .(3)
Hence, the tax
burden car led by the ' onfcana farm owner has not only tr e b le d , but hie
a b i l i t y to pay has decreased to such an e x te n t th at farm ta x es are probably
four or fiv e tim es more d i f f i c u l t to pay now than they were six te e n years
ago.
Trie b e st evidence th at a readjustm ent i s needed in
ta x e s i s th e f * c t t at
to pay th e ir ta x e s .
iOntana farm
any farm owners have e ith e r refu sed or been unable
y the end of 1936 epproxlm ately 3 ,6 0 0 ,0 0 0 acres o f
6
far
land w i l l have been t a en by c o u n tie s through ta x d e ed . (2)
Such l a r ^ e -
Bdolm d e lin uency l a not o n ly a problem- from the s ta n d p o in t o f d e e r aged
mb l i e re v e n u e , bu t i t l e ample evid en ce t h a t th e ta x load on
antana farm
land I s e i t h e r too g r * a t o r t h a t I t la not d i s t r i b u t e d a c c o rd in g to the
a b i l i t y of the land to nay; o r a e I s n o e t pro b ab ly th o onse tlm burden I s
b o th too g r e a t and u n e q u a lly d i s t r i b u t e d .
/urpoee o f the I n v e s t i g a t i o n .
Thle I n v e s t l ettlon l a d esig n ed :
(I)
To a n aly z e and determ ine the
e x t e n t o f I n e q u a l i t i e s In th e t a x a t io n o f a g r i c u l t u r a l la n d s In
(8}
o n tan a;
t o d is c o v e r the n a tu re and eaut-e of such lne n a l l t i e s a s m y e x i s t
by a th o ro u g h stu d y o f th e o p e r a tio n o f th e
ment and t a
t l o n ; and (3)
re v e llin g
ethod o f a s s e s s ­
to stu d y th e ta x and nse' ssment problem w ith a
view to «r : fin d in g f s o t e upon which t o base reco
end*tlo n * p0r a more
e q u i t a b l e system o f t a x a t i o n .
II.
METHOD f TllE IK" ETIOtTIOM
'i -o p h ilo so p h y u n d e rly in g th e method used In t h i e s tu d y a s w e ll a s
the method i t s e l f Ie so d i f f e r e n t f r o
th e apt roach uead In
re v lo u e
s t u d i e s d e n lln g with ta x I n e q u a l i t i e s t h a t I t w ill r e q u i r e so ewhat d e t a i l ­
ed
7 I e ztot l o n .
pose:
(I;
>;e fo llo w in g d isc ,eelon I s p re se te d w it
a tw o-fold
ur-
j o seq u el it th e r e a d e r w ith th e method used In th e stud., in
o rd e r t h a t he
ay b e t t e r u n d e rstan d and e v a lu a te the r e s u l t s ; and 18)
J u s t i f y , I f p o s s i b l e , th e b a s ic
to
r e is o s u or which th e s t s t l r t i o a l r e s u l t s
a r e bsaed.
rw v lous s t u d i e s of th e I n e q u a l i t i e s In th e t a x a t i o n
:f a g r i c u l t u r a l
«» 7 •»
IanflB h TB confined theraeelvea to the I n e q u a lltie e in ^erese en ta .
In
moet o a ses th e in e q u a lit ie s In aeaeeemonts hare been bused u ,on the eelfe
value of the p rop erty.
Inv a tlg a tlo n s o f th is type baaed upon the ume ual
r e la tio n s h ip between aaseswed v a lu a tio n s and s a le
Juo r e s t firm ly on the
t l e tr ie d and le g a lly supported pram I at-that in e q u a lit ie s in a ssea si ent
■are the only I n e q u a litie s and unequal le v ie s e^ n ^ d if f e r e n t minor c i v i l
d iv is io n s end timoru c o u n tie s are not Ine ual ! t i e s because they have V s
s u ;port o f the law and ousto .
he use of the s a le value of property ns
the b a sis of in e q u a lity assumes that the p l y o f economic fo r c e s w ill cause
land to
e sold for i t s "true" v a lu e .
o much fo r oth er x eta o d s.
ue property tax system how operatin g in
f e c t in I I
and i e
own ae the
ont-na was put in to e f ­
ontsna c l a e a i f led property ta x .
This
system was put in to e f f e c t with the s p e c if ie d purpose o f o b ta in in g a more
s u i t a b l e d is tr ib u tio n o f the tax burden among d if f e r e n t economic groups
and d iffe r e n t kinds o f
low s, " a ll taxable
r o p e rty .
in th is connection the law s t a t e s [ie f o l ­
roperty must be ae eeeed a t I ts f u l l cash value". —
k S ta te board o f Kqualiz n tI o n was a ls o c r a t e d and d eleg a ted w itu the au­
th o r it y , "to do a l l th in g s neoeseary to securu a f a i r , j u s t and eq u itab le
valu a tio n o f a l l taxab le property amon
c o u n tr ie s , between d if fe r e n t c l a s s ­
e s o f property snd between in d iv id u a l taxp ayers" . (4)
L egally then, a l l
a g r ic u ltu r a l land in Wontona should be a sse sse d according to i t s " fu ll
cash value".
A study o f farm tax Ine u t ilit ie s in
on tana -• asuring the
d is p a r ity beta# n s a le value and a ssessed value would show the departures
l / - tU ll cash value* i s defin ed as the amount at which the roperty
would be taken In payment fo r a Just debt from a so lv en t d eb tor.
8
fro
th e I n t e n t o f th e law.
The q u e s tio n
I g h t he m im ed , howee r :
would
euoh ■ stu d y b rin g t o l i g h t th e r e a l I n e q u a l i t i e s In th e tn x burden on
o ntan
f a r * land#?
Let ua c o n s id e r th e m e r i t s of an Ic vo Iue a s a b a s is
o f a s s e s s i n g a g r i c u t t u r I l«nd f o r t a x a t i o n .
Tn th e f i r s t p la c e the s a le
v a l ie I k k o n f o r o n ly a s n a il p r o p o r tio n o f the t o t a l f a r , la n d ,
ousistanoee o t n e r th an th
m e r its of the p r o p e r ty
a ir-
ay and o f te n do e f f e c t
th e s a l e p r i c e .
u r t h r o r c , how a r e la n d s to be as. eased t h a t have never
been s o ld
has n vmr been a d e t a i l e d a d a c c u r a te in v e n to ry taken
Ther
of__ ontM n ‘ p L-e ; 4 r e s o u rc e s f o r a e r nement pur o n es.
tte a e s a n r l]y r e f Ia o t the t r u e - a r l t o f f a r
s a l e value I s kno n f o r only
assessed.
la n d .
t any g iv en t i e the
a very sm all p a r t o f th e t o t a l land to be
' 'i e r e f o r e , the oy c o n c lu s io n the* can be
v alu e Is e n t i r e l y lnadeouat
S a le v a lu e does not
drawn i s t h a t s a le
a s a b a ste o f as e a r in g f a r a lan d o r fo r
d e te rm in in g t c re I i n e q u a l i t i e s In Bb h s f . e tit.
oe l e t u s c o n s id e r t h e
eldc I
ltle s .
- dlffere.-icee in th e r a t e o f I vy ee a
eenur ient o f ta x l n e r u a l -
in the eyee of .he I w, Inequ l i t l e s in asset?; a n t e a r e th< o< Iy
leequ l i t l e s .
m s , unequal ta x burdens a r i s i n g f r o
o f levy STong c o u n tie s an
lew .
e a su re o f only ass seed value w ith o u t eo a-
the d i f f e r e n t
school d l a t r i o t k ar« j u s t i f i e d unde
a te
the p r e e t n t
xe phi lo se hy u n d e rly in g euoh a s y e te - i s t-.r c a r r y o v e r from th e
days of the horse and buggy w en t o vsJo i t y o f t e neoole s e r e born,
liv e d ,
md died w ith in om s
n i l co u i t y .
velop? d tho s e l l a r e a t x base was
la rg e d co
n th e c u l t u r e
e l l ad ap te d ,
u n ity growing o u t of th e dev elo p ,( t
wh-: re i t de­
u t today with our en­
in t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and
- V -
eo- T u n lcatlon , the aehool d i s t r i c t , the county end In so e c sea the atato
i s too s i a l l a u n it fo r le v y in g ta x e s .
eo p le do not use only the roads
w ith in th e ir own sch ool d i s t r i c t or even th e ir own county or s t a t e .
day they tr a v e l over s much wider a r ea .
venue fo r road co n stru ctio n in
ceiv ed to i e e t the
o-
The gmaoline tax now providing r e ­
'ontfina and oth er s t a t e s i s a
odern co n d itio n s o f t r a v e l.
tax con­
U nfortunately *e have
ade no such or e g r e ss in our system o f d e r iv i g revenue fo r the support
o f our
rimery and secondary sc o o ls .
fa x e s fo r the support of our lo c a l
sch ool sy str e are s t i l l le v ie d upon a sch o o l d i s t r i c t a n d ,in the ca se o f
the county hi h sch o o l,o n a county hoae.
Hie e f f e c t o f such a sy ste
of
ta x a tio n i s th a t t ose eho are unfortunate enough to own property in a
d i s t r i c t where there are ch ild ren to be sen t to sch ool
u s t pay fo r th e ir
education w hile in t h is modern a ^e, not they a s in d iv id u a ls , but the e n tir e
s o c ie ty over a n e tio n -s ld e area d erive th e b e n e fit s o f an educated c it iz e n r y .
Furthermore, the c h ild re n req u irin g education are not evenly d istr ib u te d
throughout t e country nor are they d is tr ib u te d according to the value of
t e property.
There nay be and o fte n Ie e co n een tra tio
poor a g r le u ltu r e l a r e a s.
The land owners in th a t
o f c h ild ren in
rea pay fo r t e educa­
tio n o f the oh ild r n w h ile land owners in a d jo in in g sc o o l d i s t r i c t s , where
th ere are no c h ild r e n , do not bear the burden o f educ tin g the on-ooTiing.
sen ^ratI on.
he
ontana S o il
urvey—The
a s ie fo r &ensuring I n e q u a lit ie s .
Thie meneur ment o f in e q u a litie s in t h is in v e s tig a tio n i s based u on
the
ontans s o i l survey and land c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .
This survey has been com-
10 -
p ie te d i n o n ly 21 c o u n tie s end th e stu d y Ie th e r e f o r e l i m i t e d to the a re a
ehov»n In
‘l^ u r e I .
o f the p a r t o f
The a re a r e p r e s e n te d Ie q u ite la r g e and ia q u ite t y p i c a l
ontnnn e a s t o f th e c o n t i n e n t a l d iv i d e .
Thue th e r e e u H e
o f t h l e s tu d y should be a p p lic a b le to more than t h r e e - f o u r t h s of th e a g r i ­
c u l t u r a l la n d s i n
o n ta n a .
A s o i l survey Ie e s s e n t i a l l y a s c i e n t i f i c in v e n to ry o f the s o i l r e ­
so u rc e s in any a r e a .
he reconnOieance s u rv e y , uoon which t h i s study i s
b a se d , f u r n i s h e s in fo rm a tio n i n regnrd to :
(I)
i o i l r e s o u r c e s , (8)
de p ta b I I I t y o f th e topography to a g r i c u l t u r e , and (3)
fi­
t e c a r r y in g c a a e i t y
of th e d i f f e r e n t s o i l a ro a s f o r l l v e a t o c : . ^
In u sin g th e s o i l survey as a b a s i s o f d eterm in in g i n e q u a l i t i e s in
t a x a t i o n c e r t a i n f a c t o r s e f f e c t i n g th e v i l u e o f land a re no t tak en In to
c o n sid e ra tio n ,
l o r exa
l e , n earness to sch o o ls , towns,
a r k e te and im­
proved ronde l a no t c o n sid e re d i n e v a lu a tin g th e land s o l e l y on th e b a s is
o f th e s o i l s u rv e y .
Ita o u g h th e s e f a c t o r s should he g iv e n th e f e p ro p er
waif t In a se e e ta g a g r i c u l t u r a l land they have been o m itte d f r
th is
stu d y because o f th e d i f f i c u l t y i n m easuring t h e i r e f f e c t s t a t i s t i c a l l y .
urt
r - 'o r e , although th ese fa c to r s do e f f e c t the value o f the land as a
p la ce to l i v e they do not m a te r ia lly e f f e c t i t s a b i l i t y to pay ta x e s .
*—
Another qu estion th a t might be r a ise d in connection w ith the use
o f th e s o i l survey land c la s s if i c a t i o n aa a b a sis fo r determ ining the
zj
<'o"r
re-
and O laaalfiflietio a see S ec. TZ ApneBdlxZ
3 / The land used in t h i s stud, was dev.Led e i t h e r to dry land farm ing
o r to g ra z in g and g e n * r a lly speaking bad no o t r e r im p o rta n t a l t e r n a t i v e
uses.
In the e usee th e p r o d u c t i v i t y o f th e land aa determ ined by the
s o i l survey i s by f a r n more ! r .- o r ta n t c r i t e r i a of i t a value than th e
l o c a t i o n o r o th e r f n o t o r e .
MONTANA
O
50
MILES
i’igure I .
AP OF MONT.NA SIOftT G THE SI COUNTB
COVERED IN T IS STUDY
IOO
12 —
aenoe o f ! ' , e q u a l i t i e s l a t h e a ccu racy of* t i e eurvey I t a o l f .
a r t of tie
su rv e y wee completed about e ig h t y e a rs ago end I t i s k' own t h a t soi e o f th e
land
a s d e t e r i o r a t e d p h y e io e lly s in c e t h a t t i e .
u r t h r o r e , in uany
a r e a s th e reo o n n o issan o e survey Is ^o re g e n e r a l than would be needed to
provide a b a s i s f o r eciual a s s e s s m e n ts .
In s p i t e of a l l o f th e se q u e s tio n s
t . t may be r a i s e d r g a rd in g th o u se o f th e
ontana s o i l survey a s th e
s o le c r i t e r i a f o r d e te rm in in g i n e q u a l i t i e s , i t s t i l l l a t h e b e a t In fo rm a tio n
a v a ila b le fo r
e a a u rln g th< tru e v a l e o f t < land o v e r a la r g e a r e a , and
w i l l se rv e a d eq u a te ly to b rin g to l i g h t th e more im o r i e n t i n e q u a l i t i e s
under t h e p res n t system .
ourc
of ' a t a .
Oats r e l e t i v n to th e ta x burden borne by <eoh p a r c e l o f land wee
o b ta in e d from aasoacreeat and d elin q u en cy r e c o rd s in the f i l e s o f th e D eparte n t of
T lc u ltu ra l
o o n o - lc s ,
Ontanw A g rlc u ltu a I
Theee r e c o r d s r e p r e s e n t a l l t r : o t s of
l in o u e n t in r e c e n t y e a r s .
xperi e n t
tn tio n .
ontan a farm land t h a t have been ie»
Ince t cse r e c o r d s r e p r e s e n t more than th r e e -
f o u r th s of th e a g r i c u l t u r a l I nd reI t h i n th e a re u s tu d ie d th e y provide a
good c r o s s s e c t i o n of the v ir l o u e c l a s s e s and grades of la n d to be sam pled.
ties
r e c o rd s g iv e the number o f a c r e s , the l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n , the o n o r,
the value and th e ta x paid f o r . ech p a r c e l o f la n d .
a r e caused J o i n t l y by unequal a s s e s
have been
S ince th e i n e q u a l i t i e s
a n te ^nd urn quaI l e v i e s th e s e two f a c t o r s
manured ooncurre t l y in t e m a o f the tax
a id p e r a c r e .
Ine­
q u a l i t i e s in assessm en t have nlr-o been r «a cured in a l l c a s e s and may be
found i n Table VT o f th e Appendix.
-
-
r I - i t-itlo n s of ia tw .
The s iz e o f aemole used In the in v e s tig a tio n was lim ite d by two
f o to r s :
(I )
The number o f paroeIe o f land th at were a v a ils Ie having
only one grade o f land w ithin th e ir boundaries; and (E)
th e amount o f
dat' t iat oould he s e a l lla to d and analyzed w ith in the time a v a ila b le .
Jtbout 3000 separate
ia ro els o f lend averaging about 360 acres per
a r e e l were used in tno stu d y .
The samp In was t
on as m a r ly as p o ssib le
a t random; the only lim ita tio n being th a t eaob parcel s e le c te d oould r e ­
p resen t o Iy one grade o f land.
The aeaeaaed v a lu a tio n and t«v upon each
p arcel were a v a ila b le fo r a period varying fror?: one to s ix years during
tue period 19E8 to 1933.
The average p a r c el o f land used in the study w-»e
rep resen ted In about four y&ars of th at p e r io d .
tio n s la t
a sse sse d valu ation and t x fr o
Since th ere were v a ria ­
y -a r to year the data were
analyzed both by yenre and fo r the e n tir e p erio d .
owever, s in c e the Im­
portant in e q u a litie s continued w ithout ex cep tio n over the e n tir e period ,
the r r e u lt s o f the study have been presented fo r the s ix year period rather
than fo r nay s in g le year;
III.
VALUi- Aim TAX I ATTNO ABILITY OF DIFFER OT ORAD
I t has
ed v alu ation on
UF
ONT NA LAND
een necessary in ^any c a se s to compare the tax and the a s s e s s ­
ne grade o f land with th a t o f another.
This oould not be
done w ithout h vlng SOne n otion ae to the r e la t iv e value and r e la t iv
ayi
a b i l i t y of the d if fe r e n t
radea.
The fo llo w in g ta b le shows the
r e la t iv e value and r e la t iv e tax paying a b i l i t y o f each grade of land.
tax
14
a b le I .
VAI U
UiD TAX
AYl :
Ir ITY LF
AJH R D CF !,AND. I /
Value Per
fax a y Ing a b i l i t y
________________________________________e r e _________________ « r -ere______
Fara J a n d :
F i r s t Orade
eeond "
Third
F o u r th "
20.00 p e r a c r e
•f
11.60 n
m
3.00 1 .5 0 **
40 c e n ts per oc re
ft
i» •t
23
e
t
W
W
6
#
3
C razin g lands
F i r s t Grade
r-econd "
Third
Fourth "
F ifth
4/
c .f.
3 .7 6 p er a c r e
3.00 *
if
2.00
W
W
1.60
W
1.00 tf
n
6
4
3
2
c e n ts jier a c re
H
W
*
W
»
*
At
W
#
W
p . 14-16.
^
Pie v a l u a t i o n and e a t Imated ta x paying a b i l i t y o f f i r s t and second
ra d e f a r
land Ie based upon t h e i r e a r n in g c a p a c ity In wheat p ro d u c tio n .
S in ce t h i r d and f o u r t h g rad e farm lan d do
o t r e t u r n a n e t p r o f i t in w hett
p ro d u c tio n a t p r e v a i l i n g n r l e e e , t h e i r value end tax paying a b i l i t y has
been d e t e r lned alo n g w ith t h a t of a l l g rn d e s o f g r a z in g lan d by t h e i r
value a s g r a z in g la n d s .
The r e l a t i v e v alu e and t a x paying a b i l i t y of g ra z in g la n d s has been
w hile Cd In* . n ta a
by
.
.
a u n d erso n .
u llo tin
o . 311, Ie a d J u s tln g
on taria’ p
The fo llo w I nr q u o t a t I or ex l a l n s th e
-ric 1 1 ire
e t od used in
computing th o se v a lu e s .
"T ie a n n u al lnnc! l e a s e v alu es on a cow o r ewe b a s is o f 4.00 and
5 . 0 . cow and -I.00 to 1.25 a ewe, a p p lie d to t tm
re d e s o f land and
t h e i r ra z I r oa s ic l ty , Vve n b a s is f o r th e deti r inn lio n of I tiae v a lu e s
f o r d i f f e r e n t grad*a o f la n d a t
IS -
Leaee value
ft
*
*
If
W
ff
W
Of f i r e t grade re ar e la n d . 18 to 82 c e n ts p e r sore
*
*
B
B
second •»
18 to 17
* th ird
n
W
*
B
B
9 to 11
ft fourth n
*t
tf
n
•t
7 to 8
n
W
#$ f i f t h
w
ft
4 to 6
W
«f
M
W
it
"A comparable Inveatment value per acre fo r th ese f i v e grades o f
range la n d s, baaed upon a t o t a l Investm ent o f $50,00 to 60.00 per cow and
12,00 to 16.00 per ewe In land and improvement; , would be :
F ir s t grade range land
ft
ft
Second ft
It
ft
B
Third
W
#
Fourth *
ft
ft
ft
F ifth
$ 8.50
1 .50
1.0 0
.75
.5 0
to
to
to
to
to
3 .5 0
8 .5 0
1.50
1.00
.75
"These Investm ent values fo r r nge lands are based upon a land tar
s it u a t io n th a t would not take more then o n e-th ird of the annual le a se
value o f such la n d s.
uei an annual ta x r a te upon th ese f iv e d iffe r e n t
grades o f pinge land would amount to:"
On
On
On
On
On
f i r s t grade range land 6 c e n ts
it
n 4
second "
B
ft
3
th ird
ft
# 2
Cf
fou rth •
ft
M
ft
fifth
"
I
to
"
"
"
"
7
6
4
3
8
cen ts
ft
ft
ft
an acre
it
it
w ft
B ft
ft
ft
A b a s is for th e r e la t iv e value and r e la t iv e tc x paying a b i l i t y o f
the variou s Tredes o f farm lands Is found in an unpublished study con­
ducted by the Department o f Agricultural Heonomlca, Montana Ktate C o lle g e .
The r e s u lt s o f the stud y show the com parative net Income from growing
wheat on the fou r grade# o f farm lan d .
Table I I . - C--STS MD MET RKTORNS PHH AOttK
VAi-IOVS CRADEE
OF Far . LAND: 800 ACRbS Al-TKRNAT. CRO AND SUMMER
FAU-OA SYSTEM: ViiIAT 75' CiIttS I1ER EBHSL
Farm Land
F ir s t Grade
Second
ft
Third
Fourth
Buahele
Io r Acre
BE
18
14
11
Gross
Inoone
16.50
13.50
10.50
8 .8 5
T otal
Cost
!
.
10.07
9 .5 8
6 .0 8
Net P r o fit Value : e r
or lo s e
■icre
•5.98
3 .4 3
.98
- .7 7
20.00
11.50
3 .0 0
1.50
Tmi Paying
A b ility Per
Acre
$
.40
.23
.06
.03
— 16 —
an BOO acre ea t up Ie probably sofawhat larger
s iz e d u n it than Ie ty p ic a l o f Montana wheat fa r a .
nd Ie a more e f f i c i e n t
Aleo the assured y ie ld
per acre la higher fo r a l l grades o f land than th e ir h is t o r i c a l record would
ju s tify .
e ith e r o f th ese f a c to r s , however, h a s any e f f e c t upon the r e la t io n ­
sh ip between the net p r o f it s to be rade on the d if fe r e n t gradea o f land.
m e fig u r e s r ep resen tin g the tax paying a b i l i t y o f the various grades
o f lan d , aa mown In la b ia I I , are derived as fo llo w s .
per acre has been assumed fo r f i r s t grade farm land.
A value of
20.00
This i s the v alu ation
used In computing the land charge used In the c o s t study c i t e d .
a the b a s is
o f t h is v a lu a tio n the tax paying a b i l i t y of number one farm land was s e t a t
40 c en ts per acre*
Forty cen ts la S per cen t o f the "aasumed valuation o f
SG,00 f>er a c r e .
fo r two rea so n s:
1WO per c e n t of the v a lu a tio n was chosen as a ju st tax
(I )
The fe d e r a l Lend Bank has e s ta b lis h e d precedent in
t h is con n ection by refu sin g to make loans where the ta x i s g rea ter than £
per cent o f the appraised v a lu a tio n , and (2)
the ta x paying a b il it y of the
f iv e grades of gra%lnr land is a proxim ateIy 2 per cen t o f th e ir v a lu e.
Ttte r e la t iv e tax paying a b il it y o f second and th ird grade far"= land
has been d eter Ined in the same way aa in the ca se o f number one.
23 cen ts and 6 cen t
A tax o f
r e s p e c tiv e ly on second and th ird grade farming bears
th e mama r e la tio n s h ip to the net p r o f it s to be
ade r a i s i n g wheat on th o se
Trades o f land , a s the tax on number one farm land beam to the
r o f i t s to
be made on th at grade o f la n d .
Fhere i s no net p r o fit to be made by r a isin g wheat on fourth grade
fa ir lan d .
>e Table I I .
Since i t has no tax paying a b il it y aa farm len d ,
- 17 -
i t oan be taxed only as grazin g len d .
fo r grazing
land
The valu e o f fou rth gr de fair, land
urpones w ill vary w id ely , depending upon whether or
o t the
tta been t i l l e d , and in case o f land V at has been t i l l e d and sin c e
abandoned, the e x te n t to which the forage cover has retu rn ed .
The ca rry in g
ca p a city o f th ese lands w ill range from th a t o f third grade grazing dorm to
th at o f f i f t h grade grazin g,
(n an average, the tax paying a b il it y o f fou rth
grade farming land w i l l probably not be above 3 cents an s o r e .
Ith the r v la tiv e tax paying a b i l i t y as a base U i s p o ssib le to
CO pare one grade o f land with another in ter- a o f the ner cen t the a c tu a l
tax paid Ie o f the tax paying a b i l i t y fo r the same grade o f land .
If any
p arcel of I n d la paying a tax amounting to 100 per cent o f Ita tax paying
a b i l i t y , I t i s raying, a ta x in a Juat proportion to i t s
r o d u o tlv ity : i f
the ta x paid Is BOO per cen t o f i t s tax paying a b il it y then the tax burden
i s ju st tw ice as large as the tax paying a b i l i t y o f the land , ana so on.
TV.
.NtLTuI
I ? IifK .UALITIES
I n e q u a litie s Amon^ Grades o f la n d ,
lgure 2 eh a m the a sse sse d v a lu a tio n o f each grade o f land in terms
o f t ie ner cen t the aeseased v alu a tio n i s o f the v a lu a tio n based upon I t s
r .duct I v i t y .
th e ta x Maid In
Igure 3 g iv e e about the s?» e p ictu re except th at i t s owe
er cen t o f th* tax naytng a b i l i t y .
Ce* paring the two
ch arts i t w ill be n o tic d t h a t the in e q u a lit ie s in ta x p a id p e r sc r
are
5 / " y r« ferrim / to Table II o f the Appendix the reader may convert the
"tax c a id in - r cen t of tax pey .g a b i l i t y ” in to the a c tu a l tax r a id ,
a d fr o
a b le III o f the Appendix the " assessed v a lu a tio n in xer cent o f
production value" mey be converted in to a c tu a l a ssessed v e lu e .
18 -
PER CE NT
FARM LAND
NO.I NO.2 N O. 3 NO.4
NO. I
GRAZING L A N D
NO.2 NO.3 N 0 . 4
NO.5
F ig u re 2. INEQUALITIES IN ASSESSMENTS AMONG GRADES OF LAND
Assessed Value in Per Gent of P ro d u c tio n Value
(Source of D ata, Table IX. Appendix)
PER C E N T
FARM LA N D
GRAZING LAND
NO I NO.2 NO.3 NO.4
NO I NO.2 NO.3 N 0 . 4 NO.5
F ig u re 3 . INEQUALITIES IN THE TAX BURDEN AMONG GRADES OF LAND
Tax P a id i n Per Cent of Tax Paying A b i l i t y
(Source o f D ata, Table IX. Appendix)
19 -
not q u ite as g r ea t os the in e q u a lit ie s In the a ssessed v a lu a tio n .
In o th er
words, the ra te o f levy has tended to c o r r e c t the in e q u a lit ie s in assessed
v a lu a tio n .
The most s a lie n t fa c t brought out by th ese two ch a rts i s the
in e q u a lity in the ta x burden among the grades of land .
F ir s t grade farm
land i s ,n o t carryin g i t s f u l l share o f th e ta x burden.
Second grade farm
land i s carrying Just about i t s ju st lo a d , w hile th ird grade farm land is
naylng a ta x amounting to 300 per cent o f i t s tax
eying a b i l i t y .
ourth
grade farm land i s s t i l l fu rth er out of lin e w ith a ta x burden amounting
to more than 450 per cent o f i t s a b i l i t y to pay.
F ir s t grade grazing land
la raying only a l i t t l e above i t s a b i l i t y to pay but second, th ir d , fo u rth ,
and f i f t h grade grazing are a l l paying a ta x th a t i s w e ll over 200 per
cent o f th e ir tax oaying a b i l i t y .
F i-u r e s 4 and 5 show the d is tr ib u tio n o f farming and grazin g lands
6mong in e q u a lity groupings.
Motice the t o t a l number o f a c re s and the
amount of each grade o f land, coming w ith in ^ach grouping.
These charts
show not only the in t e n s it y o f in e q u a lit ie s among grades o f land but a ls o
the number of acres th at are a ffe c te d .
Some o f the fa c to r s th at may b
r esp o n sib le f o r th e s e great In-
eouaH t i e s in the ta x burden among grades o f land are:
(I )
F a ilu re on the
part of government o f f i c i a l s to a p p reciate the s ig n ific a n c e o f tax in eq u a l­
i t i e s , (2)
lack of inform ation and data in the hands of land owners upon
which they might base a claim for Lax readjustm ent, (3)
in a b ilit y o f
a s s e s s o r s to determ ine th e production value of f a r Ing and grazin g lan d s,
(4)
over expansion o f s o c ia l se r v ic e in areas o f lew grade s o i l , and (5)
over c a p it a liz a t io n o f farm and ranch r e a l e s t a te
- 20
THOUSANDS
OF ACRES
2500
FARM L A N D
2250
F I R S T GRADE
2000
SECON D GRADE
TH IR D GRADE
1750
Q
1500
F O U R T H GRADE
1250
1000
750
500
250
&
O
O
CU
Q
O
fO
O
m
m
O
O
O
m
O
O
m
O
m
m
O
O
ID
O
m
CD
O
O
r-
o
r-
o
O
I-
O
H
O
H
O
I-
O
h-
O
H
O
H
O
H-
O
H-
O
H-
a OVER
m .
O
m
CXJ
O
O
Q
to
O
O
CXJ
O
m
CU
O
O
ro
O
in
rO
O
O
O
m
O
O
m
O
m
m
O
O
CO
O
m
CO
700
O
O
O
O
m
O
rO
in
TA X PAID IN P E R C E N T OF TAX PAYING A B I L I T Y
F ig u re 4 .
ACRES OF FARM LAND IN 21 COUNTIES BY INEQUALITY GROUPS
(Source of D ata, Table IV Appendix)
21 -
THO USANDS
OF ACRES
O
50
'00
50
200
250
300
350
400
450
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
TO
50
IOO
15 0
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
T A X P A . O IN P E R C E N T OF TAX PAYING A B I L I T Y
F ig u re 5 . ACRiS OF GRAZING IATID IN 21 COUNTI ES BY INEQUALITY GROUPS
(Source o f D a ta , Table IV Appendix)
- 22
I n e q u a litie s ,monr In d ivid u al
r o p e r t ie e *
Although in e q u a lit ie s amonp In d iv id u a l p ro p erties do not lend
t i * s e lv e s to such sweeping co n clu sio n s regarding tU eir Qatur- snd cause
as do t ose a
n d if fe r e n t grades o f la n d , they a r e, n e v e r th e le s s , of
preot im portance.
'I^ure 6 illu e t r a t e e the I e q u a litie s among in d iv id u a l
p ro p erties in - argue Ooenty.
The t o t a l sample o f farni land taken in i-'ergua
Jounty la grouped Into in e q u a lity o le a s e s .
terms o f th e tax paid In per cen t o f th
f i r s t grade fa r
cen t
land are paying fr o
Itie c la s s e s are expressed la
tax rayii.
a b ility ,
^nr era on
below 50 per cen t to above 800 per
t r ta x paying a b i l i t y of t e ir land .
There are s t i l l greater
Inequ-iI l t i re among the In d iv id u a l owners on th e Io e r grades o f land.
Parsers on second grade land pay from 50 to 400 p«r cen t o f th e ir Just
tax; and th ose on third grade pay from 80 to more than 700 per cent of
the a ctu al tax paying a b i l i t y o f the land they are f a m i g .
fa r er* on th ir d grade land are paying a tax th at v a r ies fr o
In other words
6 to more
than 42 cen ts an a c re .
I t Is
ard to ex p la in such extreme in e q u a litie s among Individ a l
p a r c els o f land o f the ear * grade.
probably:
(I )
Some o f the more Important fa c to r s are
In d iffe re n c e o f county a s s e s s o r s , (2)
to make accu rate a s s e s s a n te , and
3)
in a b ilit y of a s s e s s o r s
in a b ilit y o f farmers to know or o ff.-r
proof th at they are carryin g an un just burden o f ta x e s .
Inequ l i t l e s
aiong . c o o l D i s t r i c t s .
Chere are ap p reciab le I n e q u a litie s In the t x a tlo n o f the earns grade
o f land w ith in d if fe r e n t sch o o l d i s t r i c t s .
Figure 7 i l l u s t r a t e s the v a r ls -
-23
-
NUMBER OF
ACRES IN S A M P L E
15000
FARM L A N D
F I R S T GRADE
12500
I
SECOND GRADE
T H I R D GRAD E
IOOOO
g g
FO UR TH GRAD E
7500
5000
7 0 0 a OVER
2500
TAX PAID IN P E R C E NT OF T A X PAYING A B I L I T Y
Fig u re 6 .
INEQUALITIES AMONG INDIVIDUAL TRACTS OF TAND IN FERGUS COUNTY
(Source o f D ata, T ableV Appendix)
LIBERTY COUNTY
SCHOOL DIST 3 3
H
M
40
•I
Ii
64
■I
it
35
HILL COUNTY
SCHOOL DIST 56
it
ii.
41
TOOLE COUNTY
-'A"
SCHOOL DlST 13
"
11
18
O
T
5
IO
15
CENTS PER ACRE
>
F ig u re 7. INEQUALITIES IN TAXATION AMONG
SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN SELECTED COUNTIES:
Based on F o u rth Grade Farm land
(Source o f d a t a , Table VII Apnendix)
20
26
t i o n in th e ta x paid p e r a c r e on f o u r t h grade f a r
school d i s t r i c t
land in f o u r d i f f e r e n t
In L ib e rty County and i n t o sch o o l d i s t r i c t s each in
i l l and ioole C o u n tie s .
L ib e rty County a f f o r d s th e b a t i l l u s t r a t i o n
f
th e v a r i a t i o n i n th e t a x burden on t h e seise g rade of land in the e a r e
co u n ty b u t in d i f f e r e n t sch o o l d i s t r i c t s .
he d i f f e r ? oe 'n the t a
bu -
den on f o u r t h grade lan d in d i f f e r e n t sch o o l d l e t r l c t n in L ib e rty County
ra n g e s from 17 c e n t* p e r a c r e in s c h o o l d i s t r i c t 33, t o 11 c e n tr p e r a c r e
i n sch o o l d i s t r i c t 3 5 .
TLls Ie one o f th e minor ty a s o f i n e q u a l i t i e s ,
bu t i t i s n v e r t h e l e s s o f some im p o rtan c e .
V a ria tio n # among sch o o l d i s t r i c t
th e fo llo w in g f a c t o r s :
(I)
a r e o used in a l a r g e decree by
V a ria tio n in a s s e s s e d v a l u a t i o n a on
u a l p r o p e r t i e s in d i f f e r e n t school d i s t r i c t s ,
• rone the sch o o l d i s t r i c t s , and (.")
(2)
in d iv id ­
d i f f e r ? n e e in levy
th e use o f land in d i f f e r e n t school
d istric ts. 5/
Ino taI i t i e s strong C o u n t i e s .
Ceoond in im portance only to the i n r q u a l l fclea among g ra d e s o f Ian
a r e th e I ! e q u a l i t i e s among c u n t i e s .
ta x p aid p e r a c n
F ig u re 6 show# th e v a r i a t i o n in th e
on t h i r d g r id e farm land In twelve d i f f e r ? n t c o u n tie s .
‘lo t tee t h a t th e ta x v a r i e s from 10 c e n ts p e r a c re i n Toole and B laine Cou t i e s to aa high a s 32 c e n ts p e r a c re in D aniels and J u d i t h la s i n C o u n tie s.
I f s i x cent-
p e r a c r e Ie th e J u s t ta x on t h i r d g r .d e farm la n d , farm ers o
t h i r d g r de f a r
land in
s n i e l e end J u d i t h Je s i n C o u n ties a r e paying about
500 per c e n t o f t h e i r J u s t t x lo a d .
6/
fee
nil re 11.
COUNTY
DANIELS
JUDITH BASIN
FERGU S
ROOSEVELT
VALLEY
TETON
H ILL
P H ILLIPS
CHOUTEAU
LIBER TY
TO O LE
BLAINE
;E s
O
F ig u re 8 .
5
IO
15
20
25
30
O
IO
20
30
40
C E N T S PER A C R E
^ T a N O ^ MUNT
INEQUALITIES IN THE TAX BURDEN ON THIRD URADE FARM LAND IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES
(Source o f Data, Table VI Appendix)
50
27 -
Figure 9 above a eomparison o f the tax burden borne by far
In Chouteau end Judith Basin Oountlee end the average la x burden
farr- land Ir. th
El cou n tIer- used In the stud y.
land
orn* by
Vn an average fa • lands
In Judith Basin County pay tw ice as g rea t n tax ae th. sar @ grades In
Chouteau County and more than a t ird g r e a te r tax than i s paid by the
average o f the 21 c o u n tie s .
There are se v e r a l fa c to r s cau si g the v a ria tio n In th e ta x a tio n o f
t .e ea e r-rade o f land In d if fe r e n t c o u n tie s .
eausas are:
(I )
Some o f the more important
D ifferen ce in nubile expenditures erong c o u n tie s , (S)
d iffe r e n c e In the a sse sse d va lu a tio n o f the lands in d if f e r e n t c o u n tie s ,
r e s u ltin g fro* the d iffe r e n c e In Judg
(3)
th e v a r ia tio n In the q u a lity o f
o f tae
nt an< s e t ode a ong county aeeeeBora;
and among c o u n ties; and (4)
ta te Board o f e q u a liza tio n to acco p lis h l t r
fa ilu r e
.urooee o f eq u a lizin g
the assessm ent o f far- land among c o u n tie s .
I n e q u a litie s /Jpng Ownership C la e se s.
The e n tir e sample used Ih t h is study was divided In to three owner­
sh ip c la s s e s :
r e sid e n t owned, n on -reeld en t owned, and corporate owned. Z /
lgu re 10 shows the in e q u a lit ie s among th e th ree ownership c la s s e s .
Non­
r e sid e n t owners In a l l c a se s except that o f f i r s t grade farm land pay an
average o f about V ree c^nts Ieae tax per acre than the r e s id e n t owners.
The ta x on r e sid e n t owned land Ie h igh er f o r a l l grades o f farm land than
fo r e it h e r non -resid en t or corpor te owned land, but on g ra zin g land except
2 J Land c l a s s i f i e d as corporate owned i s held by banks, loan con"antes,
and r a ilr o a d s end does not inclu de Incorporated liv e s to c k companies.
28
GRA DES OF
FARM L A N D
!
FIRST
GR A D E
[ '
I A V E R A G E FOR 21 C O U N T I E S
C H O U T E A U C OU N TY
J U D I T H B A S IN C O U N T Y
SECOND
GRA DE
THIRD
GRADE
FOURTH
GRADE
O
200
400
600
800
IO O O - U P
PER C E NT
Fig u re 9. COMPARISON OF TAX BURDEN IN SELECTED COUNTIES WITH AVERAGE FOR GROlP
Tax P a id i n Per Cent of Tax Paying A b i l i t y
(Source o f Data, Table 71 Appendix)
CENTS
PER ACRE
3 0 ----------
IH
25
R E S ID E N T OWNED
NON R E S I D E N T OWNED
g g
20
CORPORATE OWNED
15
10
-
5
0
I!
NO.
NO.2
F i S d P % .L
I
I
NO.3
SN
NO 4
NO I
NO.2
UALITIES IN T . l Pinr^*' A*. 3 G . G
(Source of Data, Table Vin .vmendix)
NO 3
&
P
NO.4
A
^^
NO.5
-80
In the e e a e o f f i r s t grade grazing the corporate owned lande r ay the h ig h est
ta x .
Gn a l l grades o f grazing land excep t f i r s t grade, th ere i e a c o n s is te n t
r e la tlo n a h i
between th e ta x paid by a l l th ree c la ee e e o f ow ners.
Although
th le d iffe r e n c e in t x upon d iffe r e n t ty p es of owners i s probably o f some
s i g n i f i e s o e , i t does not com are in importance w ith the I n e q u a litie s e x i s t ­
ing a - ong the d iffe r e n t grades o f land and among the d if f e r e n t c o u n tie s.
I n e q u a litie s detween Lands Devoted to
arming and Those Devoted to Grazing.
lands th a t are farmed u su a lly pay a h l ^ e r ta x than t ose of th e same
grade devoted to g r a zin g (se e Figure 1 1 ).
and Teton C ounties pays tw lo
grazed.
Fourth grade farm land In Fergus
as g rea t a tax when i t i s farmed as <?hen
The same tendency ie e v id e n t in a aample of second and third grade
grazing land taken from sev e r a l c o u n tie s .
This in e q u a lity i s probably due
to the I n a b ility o f county a sse ss o r s to d is tin g u is h between land that should
be graded as farm land and th at f i t o n ly fo r g r a z in g .
th at are farmed are taxed as fa r
Consequently lands
land reg a rd less o f the q u a lity o f the
s o il.
V.
SuCI AI
BCi.'SO IC f -'FBOTS OF Il
OALI IBS
Vue over-load o f ta x es u son th ird and fourth grade farm land has
r e su lte d In large s c a le tax delinquency in th ose grades o f land (see
12 and 1 3 ).
lgurea y
A comparison o f th ese fig u r e s brings out the prevalence of tax
delinquency in th ose c o u n tie s having a high percentage o f th ir d and fourth
grade lan d .
Vhe second mort important ty e o f it e q u a lity i s in the d iffe r e n c e
in the tax burden a ong the c o u n tie s .
Judith Baeln County c a r r ie s a t«x
appro lr u t e ly a th ird high er then the average aC the 21 c o u n tie s (ee
fig u r e
- 31
PER CE NT
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
FARMED GRAZED FARMED GRAZED FARMED GRAZED FARMED GRAZED
NO. I GRAZING
NO 2 GRAZING
NO.3 GRAZING NO.4 FARMING
Figure 11. INEQUALITIES BETWEEN TYPES OF LAND
Tax Paid in Per Cent o f Tax Paying A b ilit y
(Source o f Data, T a b le j - Appendix)
MONTANA
EACH DOT REPRESENTS 500 ACRES DELINQUENT IN 1932
Figure 12. MONTANA FARM TAX DELINQUENCY
Compiled by - Department o f A g ricu ltu ra l Economics, Montana A g ricu ltu ra l Experiment S ta tio n
4
THIRD GRADE
12 TO 17 BUSHELS
FOURTH GRADE
8 TO Il BUSHELS
F ig u re 15. PROPORTION OF EACH GRADE OF FARM LAND TO TOTAL AREA IN EACH COUNTY
Compiled by - D ept, o f A g ro n .. and D ept, o f Ag. E co n ., Mont. Exp. S t a . , The R ese ttle m en t Admin, and
W.P.A. C o o p eratin g .
- 34
I o t Ioe In P ig u re 12 th e p re v a le n c e o f ta x delin n u en o y i n J u d ith Siaein
C ounty.
Kuoh d e lim u e n o y r.ae f a r - r e a c h in g B o c io lv g ie e l and e c o n c rio e f ­
f e c t * , euoh a a ;
(I)
in o re a e ln g th e ta x burden on land rem ain in g m th e
ta x r o l l s and e o n ee q u e n tly (a)
ta x b u rd en s, (b)
c a u s i g more d elin q u en cy due to e x c e ssiv e
d is c o u ra g in g p r iv a te ow nership o f la n d , r e s u l t i n g in th e
e x p l o i t a t i o n o f the land re s o u rc e s , because of lack o f c o n tr o l and p e rso n a l
I n t e r e s t in th e c o n s e rv a tio n o f s o i l and p la n t l i f e , and
fa r
c)
ln e ffld l n t
o r g a n iz a tio n , because th e p r o h ib i tiv e ta x makes I t im p o ssib le fo r th e
fa rm e r to oan and th e re b y c o n tr o l s u f f i c i e n t land f o r an econo lc u n i t .
fax d e lin q u en cy Ie o nly one o f th e more obvious r e s u l t s o f an u n e o u a lly d i s t r i b u t e d tn - b u rd e n .
C e rtn in ly when th e ta x burden i s g r e a te r
th a n I f j u s t i f i e d by t e p ro d u c tiv ity o f th e la n d , the money t h a t pays th e
ta x must be deducted from th e money a v a il a b le f o r fo o d , c lo th in g ,
o r e , e d u c a tio n , and r e c r e a tio n f o r th e f a r o r 's fa i l y .
c a se th e s o c io lo g ic a l e f f e c t s o f I n e q u a l i t i e s
ad le a l
hen such i s th e
ay be e x tre m ely damaging to
s o c ie ty .
q u a liz a tio n o f ta x burdens I s a n e c e s sa ry p a r t o f any c o n s tru c tiv e
land u t i l i z a t i o n propram .
The
r e s e n t a sse ssm e n ts and le v ie s were p laced
upon thf lan d w ith o u t d e t e r lin in g i t s b e s t use and p r o d u c tiv ity .
The r e ­
s u l t has been t h a t "any la n d s t h a t a re a s s e s s e d as high g ra d e farm lands
have nroven to be s u ite d o n ly f o r g r a z in g .
I f p riv te ly owned land o f t h i s
ty e Is to be r e v e r te d from i t s
r e s f c t c o n d itio n In to g r a z in g , then t e
ta x e s must be reduced to a
where th e lan d can be used p r o f ita b l y f o r
g ra z in g p u rp o s e s.
I f such a re d u c tio n Ie no t
ade land owners
111 allow
t « land to go d e lin q u e n t and to w a ste , r a t h e r th a n make an a d d itio n a l In ­
vestm ent In th e lend In an e f f o r t to coneervo and Improve i t .
T I.
3HC OSALS yOR SSTTI8S Di A ST'T , Of ASStoSISS AND TklVtirI PANM
IANDO ACCORDING TO THKIR ABILITY TO PAY
A s y s te
Ir
o f e I a s e I f y Ing Terra la n d f o r assessm en t now in o p e ra tio n
c KenzIe County,
a s te r n
o r th Da cota has many f e a t u r e s t h a t deserv e con­
s i d e r a t i o n in d ev elo p in g a p la n a
l i e a b l e to Montana. —^
fhe fo llo w in g q u o ta tio n p r e s e n ts th e g e n e ra l f e a tu r - B o f th e system
o p er tin g In
OKenzie C ounty.
"Farming land i s u s u a lly bought and s o ld In u n i t s o f 40 a e r e e ,
q u a r te r s e c t i o n s , o r s e c t i o n s , and ta x e s a re g e n e ra lly le v ie d on «aoh 40acre t r a c t .
aoh farm i s a u n it by i t s e l f and i t s problem® o f management
a re e tra il u n i t p r o b le m .
ITierefo r e , i f th e s o i l eurvey i s to be an a id
in th e developm ent o f i and u t i l i z a t i o n p o l i c i e s and in th e c l a s s l f l c o t l o n
o f lan d s f o r th e purpose o f assessm en t and e q u a liz a tio n o f ta x e s i t Is
n eo ese a r y t h a t the eurvey be s u f f i c i e n t l y d e ta i le d to s o w th e d iff e r e n c e
between t eee o p e ra tin g u n i t e . A g e n e ra liz e d map nas l i t t l e v a lu e ; In
f a c t , i t is q u ite IeleadiB K when used f o r the a] r a l e a l o f land v a lu es o r
f o r d e te rm in in g th e b e s t u t i l i s a t i o n o f any p a r t i c u l a r farm o r t r a c t of
la n d ."
"R ural land v a lu e s and ta x e s on such lan d should be based upon th e
producing power of th a t la n d , in o rd e r to d eterm in e th e a p p r a is a l o f any /
p a r t i c u l a r t r a c t o f land having c e r t a i n h y e ic a l c h a r a c t e r l e t i c e , such a»
so I s , to co g rap h y , *nd ao o n, tb< u se to which t h i s land i s b e s t adooted
-lust be a s c e r t a i n e d . A t r a c t o f land b e a t e u ite d f o r g e n e r a l farm ing
■ho Id not be vmlu a te d u on th e b a s is o f i t s g ra z in g ca a o i t y ; end land
e a t s u ite d f o r tim b e r growing should n o t be e v a lu a te d on I t a note- t i a l
e ro p ro d u c tio n . * fte r e s t a b l i s h i n g the use g ro u p , th e r e l a t i v e vmlue o f
th e v a rio u s t r a c t s w ith in th e use group can be a s c e r ta in e d ,"
"A d e te rm in a tio n o f th e use to which a p iece o f land i s b e s t f i t t e d
depends u von i t s p h y s ic a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and environm ent and th e v a rie d
e x p e rie n c e s of people u sin g land o f s im ila r ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s . T his body o f
C x ro rie n e e i s n o t la r g e in r e c e n tly s e t t l e d a r e a s .
e an a g r i c u l t u r a l
a re a grow# o ld e r , a e economic c o n d itio e ch an g e, and as new a g r i c u l t u r a l
P/ fhe la n d re s o u rc e s ar'd type o f t g r lc u ltu r e in
ty p i c a l o f th e p la in s s e c tio n o f Montana.
c Kenzie bounty a re
• 36 —
tech n iq u e* a re In tro d u c e d , th e b e e t use of th e land change#. For t h i s
re a s o n a
rra e n t, a l l - t i r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f land i s Im p o ssib le . Thla
l a p a r t i c u l a r l y Im p o rta n t t o b ear In Ind In c o n sid e rin g newly developed
a r e a e ."
"The n a tu re o f th e s o i l , th e to p o g rap h y , and o th e r p h y e lo a l f e a tu r e s
o f t i e la n d a re e s s e n t i a l l y perm anent.
*ro a knowled#ti o f th e s e c o n d itio n # ,
to g e th e r w ith p re s e n t-d a y r e s u l t s o f e x p e rie n c e , th e lan d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
can be a d e . I f f u tu r e euangea ake t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n I n a p p ro p ria te ,
I t w i l l be a oo p a r a liv e ly sim ple m a tte r to r e c l a s s i f y t e la n d w ithout
th e need o f a d d itio n a l f i e l d mapping.
nee th e p h y s ic a l f a c t o r s of th e
land a r e a c c u r a te ly apped in d e t a i l , th e lan d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n can be r e ­
v ise d from t i r e to tim e a t c o m p arativ ely sm all c o s t. Hut, i f th e land
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s amue In th e f i e l d on th e b a s is of p re s e n t economic con­
d i t i o n s and p r e s e n t la n d u s e , r e v is io n o f tn e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n *111 r e q u ir e
t h a t a l l th e f i e l d work be done o v er a g a l .
i te * I r e f o r e , o f th e
utm oat im portance to keep tb s permanent p h y s ic a l d ate s h a r p ly s e p a ra te
fro? t r a n s i t o r y economic c o n d itio n s ."
" I t Ie n e c e s sa ry to in c lu d e a l l tIranpable ’ p h y s ic a l c a r a o t e r l s t l o s
o f th e land In th e survey which I s to be used as a b a s is f o r th e land
c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . These In c lu d e much more th a n th e s o i l su rv ey I t s e l f , a l t hough th e s o i l map form s th e c o rn e rs tone f o r th e work. Some w r ite r s have
m entioned a Ion < l i s t of f a c to r s which must be 'ta k e n I n to c o n s id e ra tio n * .
80' e o f t ,esc a re not m appable, from any p r a c t i c a l p o in t o f view . Take,
f o r exam ple, ' s o i l p r o d u c t i v i t y ', thw o n ly ay to d eterm in e t h i s f a c to r
would be by e system o f c o n tr o lle d t e s t p l o t s on each p ie c e o f la n d . Ob­
v io u s ly , such a s u g g e s tio n l a a b s u rd ,
!n o rd e r to keep c o s ts w ith in th e
realm o f p o s s i b i l i t y end to In su re u n ifo rm ity o f work, i t Is n e ce ssa ry
t h a t d e f i n i t e f e a tu r e s be ra p p e d , and in u n i t s t h a t can be g iv en r a t h e r
s l r l c t d e s c r ip tio n w ith a s l i t t l e p e rso n al I n t e r p r e t tto n a s p o s s ib le .
Ti » g e n e ra l natur* o f th e c o u n try end th e road ty r e s of p o s s ib le u t i l i z a ­
tio n w ill d e te rm in e , so e w hat, th e n a tu re o f th e in fo rm a tio n re q u ire d ,
b o th f o r t i e land c l a s s i f i e r - tio n and fo r th e stu d y o f land u t i l i z a t i o n . "
" I n g e n e r a l, th e work o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n can be s a id to have th e
fo llo w ii c o n se c u tiv e s te p s : ( I ) a c c u ra te me p in g , In d e t a i l , o f t a
im p o rtan t h y s ic a l fe a tu r e # o f th e la n d ; (2) d e te rm in a tio n of th e use to
* Ioh th e r rlo u e combiw H o a o f f e a tu r e s arc b e s t a d a p te d ; and (3) th e
e v a lu a tio n o f each in d iv id u a l t r a c t o f lan d a c c o rd in to i t s c a p a b i l i t i e s
w ith in i t s use g ro u p ." ( I )
I t w ill be noted t h a t th e method d e sc rib e d In t h i s p ap er ta k es no
a cc o u n t o f Improve a n te on farm s and ran c e s .
Is k o ta th e s e improve a n t s , euch a s b u ild in
Under the law s o f north
an;’ f e n c e s , e r
exempt from
37 -
ta x a t io n .
If t h Ie syati-m were to be used in i o n t# n a , where I itp ro Veiswnts
r e s u b je c t to t r a t i o n , an a s s e s s ^ n t o f them would need to bo
ad® and
added to t h a t o f th e la n d .
r-iere a re two d i s t i n c t p la n s by which e system s i m i l a r to th a t in
c e n zle
Jounty could be s e t up In
th e I r g e n eral
on ta n a .
The p la n s would be s im ila r in
e thod b u t would d i f f e r in th e scope o f th e undertaking; and
In t h e i r o r g a n is a tio n .
Th. Oounty P lan.
T h la V le n l a s th e name im p lie s , i s o rg a n iz ed and s e t up e n t i r e l y on
a count:
a s ia .
fhe s te p s in v olv ed in p u ttin g i t in to e f f e c t would be ee
f o llo w s i
(1)
The s t a t e l e g i s l a t u r e would need to a u th o riz e c e r t a i n changes
in th e county a s s e s s o r 's o f f i c e and method o f a s e e s e n e n t.
(2)
A d e ta ile d s o i l survey would be needed fo llo w in g in g e n e ra l
th e sugi e titio n s in th e fo re g o in g q u o ta tio n .
(3)
A land u se study of th e county would be needed In o rd e r to
determ in e th e use to which th e v a rio u s t r a c t s o f land e re b e e t ad o p ted ,
and to ev alu '-t
each in d iv id u a l t r a c t of land a c c o rd in g to i t s c a p a b i l i t i e s
w ith in t h i s u s e .
A s o i l survey i e a te c h n ic a l Job and would have to be done by p erso n s
e s p e c ia ll y tr a in e d in t h a t w ork.
In Montana th e n e c e ssa ry d e ta ile d su rv ey
Ig h t be done in c o o p e ra tio n w ith th e
t a t e Kxperlment
ta tlo n .
a
land u se
stu d y to d e term in e th# b e e t u se and the v a lu a tio n o r each t r a c t o f land
should a t l e a s t be su p e rv ise d by someone e s p e c ia ll y tr a in e d In th a t f i e l d .
- 58
Cnoe th e s o i l survey were, com pleted and th e b e e t use and v a lu a tio n o f each
t r a c t o f lan d d e term in e d , th e system c o u ld be n a ln tn in e d e f f i c i e n t l y by one
o r two tr a in e d re n and would c o s t le a s th an th e p re s e n t s e t up and th e r e a u l t l n - asse ssm e n ts would be d i s t r i b u t e d w ith in th e county a c c o rd in g to
th e a b i l i t y o f th e land to pay.
Tne a y a te
a s s e t up eo f a r would c o r r e c t I n e q u a l i t i e s In s o fa r a s
they were caused by unequal a s s e s s m e n ts .
hat ab o u t I n e q u a l i t i e s caused
by d i f f e r e n t le v ie s among ec ool d i s t r i c t e d
These I n e q u a l i t i e s a re
e q u a lly aa un u s t aa th o se caused by u nequal assessm en t and t h e i r r e s u l t s
a re e q u a lly e s dnmeglne.
I n e q u a l i t i e s w ith in a county due to an unequal r a t e o f aaseeem ent
co u ld be removed by leaking th e county th e u n i t o f ta x a tio n r a t h e r than
th e so o o l d i s t r i c t o r o th e r a u b -d I v is io n .
ev in g e q u a liz e d mesessmente
by p u t t i n ' In to o p e ra tio n a s c i e n t i f i c system o f e v a lu a tin g la n d s a cc o rd \
Ing to t h e i r a b i l i t y to p ay ,
would
ln c ln g an e q u a l lev y over th e e n t i r e county
ama t h a t every farm w ith in th e county could b e a r I t s j u e t sh are o f
th e ta x b u rd en .
The
ta te
la n .
The second su g g e ste d p la n I s much
o re n e a rly th e u ltim a te In system s
o f ta x in g a g r i c u l t u r a l lan d s a c c o rd in g to t h e i r a b i l i t y to pay.
Thie p la n
I s s ta te -w id e In I t s a p p lic a tio n and i s a d m in is te re d by a permanent s t a t e
ag en cy .
te p e Involved in s e t t i n g up such a p la n would be:
(I)
A u th o riz a tio n by th e s t a t e !• g l s l a t u r o .
(S)
The c r e a tio n o f a commission w ith a te c h n ic a lly tr a in e d s t a f f
59
whiah would heve th e neeeeaary e u t o r l t y and f a c i l i t i e s to c a r ry out th e
fo llo w in ': a tope in t h l a p la n .
(3)
i s ta te -w id e s o i l su rv ey fo llo w in g In ge e r a l th e s u g g e stio n s
p re s e n te d in th e p re c ed in g q u o ta tio n .
(4)
T o v la io n s f o r a g e n e ra l s o i l survey a t I n te r v a ls o f about
e v e ry th r e e y e a rs In o rd e r to d e te c t any changea th a t nay have o ccu rred
in th e s o i l r e s o u r c e s .
(5)
The e s ta b lis h m e n t and r-ain ten an o e o f a group o f te c h n ic a lly
tr a in e d men whose duty i t e h a l l be:
(a )
To d e te r Ino th e b e s t use of
eecn t r a c t o f land end to make such changes in th e b e s t u se from tin e to
tim e a s
uy been @ n e c e s sa ry o r d e s ir a b le as a r e s u l t o f changed c ir c a -
s ta n c e s ,
(b)
to determ in e the valu e o f enoh t r a c t o f lan d w ith in i t s
use group and n e ss sue
Changes in th a t v a lu a tio n a s nay be
ade d e s i r ­
a b le by changed m ark etin g c o n d itio n s , n rio e ch an g es, ex ten d ed drought or
o th e r f a c t o r s .
An e q u a liz a tio n o f a sse ssm e n ts th ro u g h o u t th e s t a t e w ith o u t chang­
in g th e
r e s e n t u n i t s o f le v y in g ta x e s would mean th a t th e re would a t l l l
be i n e q u a l i t i e s among sch o o l d i s t r i c t s and a on
d if f e r e n c e in th e r a t e o f le v y .
c o u n tie s due to th e
Changing to a county u n it in lev y in g
ta x e s would e lim in a te i n e q u a l i t i e s among sch o o l d i s t r i c t s and th e only
i n e q u a l i t i e s rem aining would be a ong th e d i f f e r e n t c o u n tie s .
The only
remaining s te p n ecessary to ach ie v e a com plete e q u a liz a tio n o f farm ta x e s
th ro u g h o u t th e s t a t e would be an e q u a liz a tio n o f th e lev y among th e
c o u n tie s .
That i s to s a y , in o rd e r to a ch ie v e a com plete e q u a liz a tio n
- 40
o f feurrfi ta x e s In Montana th e s t a t e would u e s e s e » r lly become th e u n it f o r
le v y in g farm ta x e s .
Such a s te p has obvious ad v an tag es f r o 1 the
o f view o f e q u a liz in g th e f r a ta x b u n e n .
a in t
There a r e , how ever, many
o b s ta c le s to overco e b e fo re much a change could be made.
Tne s ta te - w id e p la n o f a s s e s s in g farm lan d Is c l e a r l y s u p e r io r to
th e "county
Ia n " , n o t o n ly because o f i t s R ider g e o g ra p h ic a l eco e bu t
a ls o because I t would a c h ie v e a , r e n t e r u n ifo rm ity of a sse ssm e n ts among
c o u n tie s , due to th e c e n tr a li z e d a d m in is tr a tio n .
The "co u n ty p la n " would,
how ever, be e a s i e r to p u t In to e f f o c t and would be a g r e a t Improvement o v er
th e p re ss t s t a t e o f a f f a i r s .
1U rth e ra o re , I t i s to be booed th a t th e
example o f th e "county p la n " In o p e ra tio n would Ieed th e way to th e f i n a l
e s t a b l i s h e a t o f th e " s t a t e
Ia n 1.
—
~41 —
LIT2Rh1URE OITSD
(1)
JielIogK e C h arles
"k liethod For The C la e a lfIc w tio n o f R u ral Lande For A eeeesnent in
e e te r n ! o r th D akota*, J o u rn a l o f U nd and P u b llo U t i l i t y
Leono tI c s 1 F ob ,, 1933, p p . 10 and T H
(2)
Montana T axpayer,
(3)
Renne, Poland R• and A llin , Buehrod
" on tan a Fan Taxea" , Montana ig r . Exp. S ta . _ ju l. £86, J a ro h , 1934,
SB p p ., I H u e .
(4)
Revised Codes of Q n U n a1 19£1
(a ) Chap. I e b , L e c tio n 2001
(b) Chap. 168, U r t V.
a r e h , 1936.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
C lark, Geo. 8. and Jeaneee, 0 . B.
"A tudy o f Taxation In lnnmeota
mente o f r'arro U nd e", Inn.
42 p p ., l l l u a .
Dougherty, .. y .
"The Ieeeem en t and
neI *= «
Ith P a rticu la r Heferenoe to ^aBeeeKx11. ta . Bui. 277, .u g ., 1931,
----- ----------------
q u a llza tIo n o f L eel Property In U la a a r e " ,
’ ta . Iiul. 159. D eo., 1928, SI p p ., U l u s .
D reesen, w. H.
"A Study in The R atio o f Aseeaafd Values to Sale Values o f Feal Property
in regon", Oregon A»r. Kxp. J t n . Bui. 233, June 1 (2 8 , 45 n p ., iliu B .
S nglund, Jriq
"Aaeesf e n t and e q u a liz a tio n o f Purr and C ity e n l K etate In fa n e a s " ,
anw
T . JX £. £ t e . J u l . £32, J u ly 1984 , 70 p p ., l l l u e .
H aoaea, e t e r
" aaeea& ent of arn Heal s t a t e f o r T ax atio n u r po ses in Hrown C ounty,
-o u th D akota", o .t n Uikpta \ g r . xt>. K ta . i r e . Vs, \--;y 1934.
16 p p ., l l l u e .
----- ------ —
Inman, le a n o r .
" S a le s a Iue and A ssessed Value o f - ebras^ra Perm la n d : 1921 - 1934",
e b ra e :a Agr. ' xp. t a . Heemare i u l . 7 7 , J u ly , 1635, £4 ip ., l l l u e .
Moon, . R.
"T ax atio n a s
e la te d to th e ro p e r ty and In e o re o f Ohio f a r e r e " .
«*£•
J i l . 46V, s e p t . , 1930, 41 P P ., l l l u e .
u r r a y , . 0 . and e ld ru , . H.
"A S ro d u ctio n eth o d of V aluing le n d " , Iowa Agr. r x p . S t a . Rul. 326,
a ro h , 1936, p p. (31b) - 335, U l u s .
---- ----------------Hence, oland R. and U l l n , Bueorod 8.
o n tan
a r T ax es" , ‘ -o tnn-, Apr. Kxp. D ta . B u i. 286,
85 p p ., l l l u e .
------------- -------Yount, I u b e r t W.
" a r m Taxes and Aeseea e n te in a a e a c h u s e tte " , a s s ,
^ jL . £35, A p r il, 1927, pp. (85) - 119, l l l u e :
/.
a r c h , 1934.
mp.
xp. D ta.
-----
^
43
J1PEZtoIX
S e c tio n I .
land O la s e lfio Ation
Perming Letid
Oradied eg to y ie ld o f spring wheat on summer f a llo w .
F ir s t Orrde Per® Land
##
*
Second "
Tbird
«#
Fourth "
28
16
IE
6
W H
W
bu. or over
to Si bu.
to IS bu.
to 11 bu.
OrazIng land
Graded as to acres per 1000 pound s t e e r fo r te n month grazin g period.
I r e t Grade Grazing Land
ft
Second "
■t
Third
W
W
Fourth *
W
F ifth
W
W
W
.)
18
19
18
37
56
mores
to 27
to 37
to 55
acres
or le s s
a c re s
a cres
a c re s
or over
T able X*
Orade o f Land
and
Uae Uroup
F i r s t Cfrade G razing
f a r ed
Grazed
Second Grade S ra z in g
Farmed
fra zed
T i r d Grade C razin g
Farmed
Grazed
F ourth Grade Farming
Farmed
Grazed
o te -
appendix -
I
,
sa
'LL
1
Bf DIFF
Acres in
Sample
.aeeaeed
Value
Levied
9,076
51,62 8
106,133
438,267
1,582
6 ,503
11.91
6.49
.17
.13
227
173
56,568
30,872
478,472
204,526
12,090
5 ,427
8 .4 6
6 .6 2
.21
.18
350
300
57,818
13,520
303,198
44,212
5,177
852
5 .2 4
3 .2 7
.09
.06
225
150
27,165
11,056
327,618
65,885
5,811
1,133
12.06
5 .96
.21
.10
700
333
B1X
Value p e r
e re
Tax p er
Acre
Tax in p e r c e n t
o f Tax Faying
a b ility
'o llo e in g e r e th e c o u n t le a renreeent< d by each grode o f land in th e above t a b l e .
I r e t CfTfsde Orgzinr - Cascade.
Second
•"
*
- Sheridan, R oosevelt and V a lley ,
in !
”
*
- R ooeevelt and Cfolden Ta: le y .
ourtii
"
"
- Tetoa and Fergua.
Table I I .
er Cent o f
Psyin/?
A bility
0 - 6 0
50 - 100
100 - 160
160 - 800
200 - 250
260 - 300
300 - 360
350 - 400
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
550-600
600 - 650
650 - TOO
TOO : Over
I
Appendix - TAX PAID Prl -*CRK I
_______________________ _
Farm land
o. 8
50 . 3
3. I
3.40
$.22
.08
0-20
80-40
40-60
60-80
-
-
0 - . 18
. 1 2 - . '3
.2 3 -. 35
.35—.- 6
.4 6 - . 58
.8 8 -.6 9
-
-
0 - . OB
.0 3 —.06
.0 6 -.0 9
.0 9 -.1 2
.1 2 -.1 5
.1 5 -.1 8
.1 8 -.2 1
.2 1 -.2 4
.2 4 -.2 T
.2 T -.3 0
.3 0 -.5 3
-
i- CB T I
M x J M d T e r A er e
|
o. 4
o. I
1.03
.075
0 - . 315
.0 1 5 -.0 3
.0 3 -.0 4 5
.0 4 5 - .oe
.06 -.0 7 5
.0 7 5 - .OS
.09 -.1 0 5
.1 0 6 - .1£
.12 -.1 3 5
. 1 3 5 - . 15
.15 -.1 0 5
.1 6 5 -.1 8
.18 -.1 9 5
.1 2 5 - .S I $
.2 1 ’ Over I
0 - . 0375
.0 3 7 5 -.0 7 5
.075 -.1 1 2 5
.1 1 2 5 -.1 5
-.11 75
.1 8 7 5 -.2 2 5
.P' 5 -.2 6 2 5
-
TfJL
HYT : AM : ITY
Grazing land
o. 2
.06
O -. 03
.0 3 - .OiJ
.06—.OS
.OS-.12
.1 2 -.1 5
.1 5 -.1 8
.ie - .2 i
.2 1 -.2 4
.2 4 -.2 7
-
o. 3
" 3 .34
0 - .o s
.0 2 -.0 4
. 4 -.0 6
.0 6 -.0 8
.0 6 -.1 0
.1 0 -.1 2
.1 2 -.1 4
.1 4 -.1 6
.1 6 -.1 8
.1 - .2 0
.2 0 -.2 2
-.
.2 4 - .2 6
. 2 6 - . 50
. 30 &
Over
o. 4
c .0 3
C- . C l 5
.015—.03
.0 3 -.0 4 5
.045-.06
.06 -.0 7 5
.0 7 5 -.0 9
.09 -.1 0 5
.1 0 5 -.1 2
.1 3 5 -.1 5
.1 5 - .1 6 5
.1 6 5 -.1 8
.19 - .1 9 5
. 1 1 5 - . 21
.21 &
Ter
o. 4
1.50
0 - .75
.7 5 - 1.50
I . SOV 2 .28
£ .2 5 - 3.00
3 .0 0 - 3 .7 5
3 .7 5 - 4 .50
4 .5 0 - 5 .25
5 .2 5 - 6.00
6 ,:i0 - 6 .7 9
6 .7 5 - 7.501
7 .6 0 - 6 .2 9
.2 5 - O.Oq
. - » . Ta
. 7 5 -1 0 .5(i
10.50% verj
* Cl C
or
RUl'UC.I :l
I
ere
io. I
3 .7 5
0 - 1.87
1 .8 7 - 3 .7 5
5 .7 5 - 8 .6 8
5 .6 8 - 7.50
7 .5 0 - .3 8
9 .3 8 -1 1 .2 5
1 1 .2 5 -1 3 .1 3
1 3 .1 3 -1 5 .0 0
1 8 .0 0 -1 6 .8 8
1 6 .6 8 -1 8 .7 5
I P .7 5 -2 0 .63
2 .63-: ,50
.
2 4 .3 6 -2 6 .2 5
26.854 Over
Orazln# lend
Io. 3
«. 4
3 .0 0
2.00
1.50
0 - 1.50
0 - 1.00
O- .75
1 .5 0 - 3.0 0 1 .0 0 - 2 .0 0
.7 5 - 1.63
3 .0 0 - 4.50 £ .0 0 - 3 .0 0 1 .5 0 - .25
4 .5 0 - 6 . .0 3 .0 0 - 4 .0 0 2 .2 5 - 3 . 5
6 .0 0 - 7 .8 0 4 .0 0 - 5.00 3 .0 0 - 3 .7 5
7 .5 0 - 9 . »0 6 .0 0 - 6.0 0 2 .7 5 - 4.50
9 . 0 -1 0 .5 0 6 .0 0 - 7.0 0 4 .5 0 - 5 .2 5
10.5 0 -1 2 .0 0 7 .0 0 - :.00 : .2 5 - 6 . ijQ
. - .
6 .0 0 - 6 .7 5
- .
. -1 .
6 .7 5 - 7.50
1 5 .0 0 -1 6 .5 0 10. -1 1 . JO 7 .5 0 - .25
1 6 .5 0 -1 8 .0 0 l l . i 0 -1 2 .0 0
9.0 0
1 8 .0 0 -1 9 .5 0 IS , - 1 3 .
9 .0 0 - 9 .7 5
-• 3 . ■ 1 3 .v -1 4 .
/.7 6 -1 0 .5 0
S i . 005t over 14.VUA -v<irl 1 0 .Sv over
-------------------1-----------------M
-a m Land „
o. 3
/3 .0 0
311,50
SO
0 - 1.50
0-10
0 - 5 .7 5
10-S0 5 .7 5 -1 1 .6 0 1 .5 0 - 3 .0 0
20-^0 1 1 .5 0 -1 7 .2 5 3 .0 0 - 4 .5 0
50-40 1 7 .£ 5 -5 3 .0 0 4 ,5 0 - 6 .0 0
40-60 2 3 .0 0 -2 9 .7 5 6 .0 0 - 7.50
50-60 S 8 .7 8 -3 4 .5 0 7 .5 0 - 9 . QO
60-70 3 4 .5 0 -4 0 .2 5 P .0 0 -1 0 .5 0
70- 0 4 0 .2 5 -4 6 .0 0 1 0 .5 0 -1 2 .0 0
IS . -L
- I .
1 5 .0 0 -1 6 .8 0
1 6 .5 0 -1 6 .0 0
: . -i .
I P .5 0 -2 1 .CO
2 1 . StOver
------------------ 1
W
O-SO
50 - 100
100 - 160
150 - SOO
SOO - 260
8 5 0 -3 0 0
300 - 360
360 - 400
400 - 450
450 - .O: )
500 - 550
350 - 600
600 - 630
650 - 700
700 % Over
:SU) v.d - . I vt ACfiJ ?
eeeesrd V aluation
O
>er Cent o f
irod u etion
Tsiuw
100
..-i
6
a b le I I I , I Mwodie -
0 - 5 0
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 2OG
£
- 250
» 0 - 300
300 - 350 •
3 6 0 -4 0 0
400 - 450
450 - 500
500 - 550
550 - 800
600 - 650
650 - 700
700
ver
sm rce:
o. I
65,248
819,384
-
"arm Land
o. 2
140,544
1 ,6*4,466
503,882
551,072
"
206,457
-
-
Om 3
o. 4
o. I
Oraalng Land
0. £
No. 3
o. 4
-
15,156
70I , £68
8 ,0 4 ,660
156,672
1 ,206,38?
302,351
87,652
546,220
-
-
604,347
&
46
1 ,0 * 7 , v3
311,717
650,408
1,252,234
591,503
-
1 ,163,332
516,402
110,512
356,477
156,342
243,344
Uc u b l l shed d a ta com piled by th e D epartm ent o f vgronomy,
ta il on.
-
-
657,326
450,161
121,671
-
-
-
401,341
•
-
-
-
- .
-
•
656,576
1,264,231
817,976
2 1 3 ,H53
522,658
223,283
121,671
1,847,422
35,237
76,621
—
—
oat&na
3 2 0 ,1 :2
#>
rH
Tax aid In e r
Cent o f Aax PayInr A b ility
Appendix - D ls r 11 ' UTION ?
T IR . I, ¥ TaNT'.
:q INK AUTT 's o u r <3:
Data Govere the E ntire Area In the 21 Countlee studied
N
O
f a b le IV.
.•
^ r l c u l t u r a l Bx e r l e e n t
THble V .
Tax laid In 1e r
Cent o f Tax la y lip-; i b l l l t y
O - 60
6 0 -1 0 0
100 - ISO
150 - 200
200 - 250
250 - 300
300 - 350
350 - 400
4 0 0 -4 5 0
•150 - 500
500 - 550
550 - 600
600 - 650
650 - 700
TOO k Over
DISTFTBLrTI'
ApTiendlx - FBRQItS COUNTY:
Farn land
o. I
Oe 2
6,960
12,978
12,026
6,120
-
-
O. 3
Oe 4
OF
r : A. ir>3 I T? VxLITT CftOtPS
&
Grazing land
O. 2
-O *
I
Ho. 3
o. 4
_
1,040
-
966
2,904
2 ,6 8 0
1,560
800
-
-
I,-OS
2,400
1,280
480
2,600
600
2,690
3 ,6 1 2
2,394
-
3 ,4 9 6
—
4,923
960
2,560
400
2,120
1,280
320
320
-
800
-
*
•
7,355
4,680
2,880
880
460
•
-
•
—
546
2,840
4,920
1,280
480
.
—
*:
7,741
3,620
1,360
11,094
16,800
11,962
—
3 ,4 4 0
960
1,600
4,240
•
1,600
•
•
•
4,320 • *
1,760
9
I.
_
•
-
-
-
Table VI.
appendix - TJUL EURDES .Ml '131
F Ar71IE rsV COt"JTISS »8D 3Y '.RaLS
_________ ____________
County find Orade
la ln e :
F ir s t ^mde farming
Second *
*
Third
Fourth "
"
F ir s t grade grazing
Second "
*
Third
Fourth "
"
F ifth
Cascade:
F ir s t prade farming
Second "
"
Third
“
*
Fourth **
"
F ir s t grade grazin g
Second *
"
I t ir d
Fourfc1 **
*
F ifth
Chouteau:
F ir s t < T s d e farming
Second "
"
Third
"
Fourth *
"
'
Acres in
Sample
eeeesed
Value
Tax
le v ie d
Value per
Acre
Tax per
Acre
$
*
S
I
30,968
7,802
89,161
260,496
45,901
120,736
5,487
801
1,971
.
8.41
5.86
4 .1 4
s , geo
81,668
18,626
90,388
•
318
1,564
3 .5 3
4 .1 7
-
-
-
-
—
t>F .AM)
... / ,
Tax Paid in per
cen t of Tax raying
A b ility
.18
.10
.07
78
167
233
.06
.07
80
117
W
-
•
—
-
-
-
-
37,718
£8,309
14,324
13,910
923,959
461,417
276,976
183,964
13,918
7,192
3,619
2,666
24.50
16.30
19.34
13.23
.37
.25
.27
.16
S3
109
450
633
60,964
2,672
2,738
640
554,550
24,054
32,570
3,685
8,177
376
487
60
9 .0 9
9.00
11.92
6 .7 6
.13
.14
.18
.09
173
233
450
-
24,947
33,703
56,650
56,092
-
-
296,396
269,040
517,074
471,630
5,638
4,314
6 ,4 2 5
7,846
11.88
7.98
6 .1 3
8.4 1
-
-
-
•
.23
.13
.14
58
57
233
467
* w
Table TI.
appendix - TAX X=BDE-V --.HD SI ';
County and lred e
,oree in
Sample
Chouteau, ConVd:
F ir s t grade grazing
i second "
"
Third
Fourth *
*
F ifth
2,644
7,560
50,935
10,223
2,200
Cuate r :
F ir s t grade farming
Second "
"
• Third
Fourth • "
-
-
7 ,835
-
40,066
f SAMHUE ST COV Til;
T OSAT=-S Of !AW 3( ?T*D.
tasesaed
Value
Tax
Tevled
Value per
Acre
■ax per
Acre
I
S
I
I
15,344
44,457
235,207
50,398
5,631
231
777
4,053
853
56
5 .8 0
5 .8 8
7.60
4 .9 3
1.65
Tax Paid in per
cen t o f fax eying
a b ility
.09
.10
.13
.08
.03
120
167
325
267
150
.08
267
-
664
.
•
'5.1 1
F ir s t grade ‘-razing
Geeond "
*
Third
Fourth "
F ifth
-
—
30,749
17,750
51,679
124,996
60,520
111,044
1,637
874
1,743
D an iels:
F ir s t grade farming
eeond ”
Third
*
Fourth "
20,212
2” ,772
7,898
-
-
•
243,531
369,390
69,269
6,119
9,118
1,672
F ir s t grade grazin g
Second **
*
Third
Fourth "
"
F if t h
"
H
_
-
—
4.0 ?
3 .4 1
2.15
.06
.04
.03
150
133
150
12.05
12.84
9 .49
.30
.32
.26
130
533
867
6.77
7.16
.19
.19
31?
475
—
7,440
6,020
50,340
43,113
1,388
1,166
-
—
•
—
_
------------ -------------
Table VI.
Appendix - BUt RU. D
Jounty and Grade
Acres in
iieniple
I
Aseeseed
Value
I* BY COOirrJ
Tax
I, e r ie d
Value per
&cr
S QP UHC,
Tax per
Acre
Tax Feid in per
cen t o f fax Faying
A b ility
Fergus:
F ir s t grade farming
second "
*
IMrd
##
Fourth "
38,166
10,950
21,361
13,683
I
755, # 5
325,297
220,849
148,559
F ir s t grade grazin g
ff
second "
m
Third
#
Fovr th *
F ifth
17,075
10,066
14,281
56,026
26,147
G la cier:
F ir s t grade farming
Second **
#
Third
#
Fourth *
F ir s t grade grazing
##
Second *
a
*
Third
Fourth **
F ifth
Golden V alley:
F ir s t grade farming
n
Seennd *
n
Third
*
m
Fourth "
$
I
*
15,076
6 ,415
4,705
2 ,903
19.78
29.71
10.34
10.66
.40
.59
.22
.21
100
257
367
700
94,827
48,261
56,225
200,187
81,214
2,029
1,025
1,265
4 ,0 3 7
1,646
5 .5 5
4 .7 9
3 .6 4
3 .5 7
3.11
.12
.10
.09
.07
.06
160
167
225
233
300
30,588
2,960
16,068
4,040
288,555
17,760
128,753
37,790
5 ,1 2 1
318
2 ,510
637
9 .4 3
6 .0 0
8 .0 0
9 .3 5
.17
.11
.16
.16
43
48
267
533
57,626
4,200
351,707
25,200
•
-
6,326
462
•
6 .0 8
6 .0 0
.09
.11
120
183
-
-
.OR
.15
133
500
-
•
-
-
5,410
15,950
44,960
113,829
-
•
-
—
456
2,337
6.3 1
7.14
T a b le V I.
A ppendix - TAX 'HBItim AI3) SIZE < ? IJtMPlM BT CM!TTIJS AKD HT CBaPES OF H NP, CC T 1D
County and Trade
eres in
Sample
Oolden V alley, c o n t’ d.
F ir s t CTflde grazing
W
Second "
W
Third
Fourth "
*
F ifth
"
11,116
64,776
6,836
4 ,80 0
B ill:
F ir s t grade farming
n
Second *
#
Third
*
Fourth "
96,731
59,206
.
1007,881
401,765
£4,548
17,107
-
146,210
121,790
Judith
e in :
F ir s t grade farming
#
Second "
#
T ilrd
#
Fourth "
8 ,29 1
41,117
16,518
7 ,2 J
F ir s t grade g razin g
e
Second *
#
*
Third
#
^ourt
"
««
F ifth
23,486
•
N
F ir s t CTade
Second "
Third
Fourth •'
F ifth
r a z in
n
m
H
#
-
aeeseed
Value
I
57,203
303,776
46,974
14,412
-
Tax
Levied
939
4,901
897
207
•
14,733
6,007
Value per
Acre
Tax per
Aere
$
S
Tax Faid in per
cen t o f Tax Paying
A b ility
-
5 .1 5
4.6 9
6.87
3.00
•
.c .08
.13
.04
133
200
432
200
•
10.21
6.79
.15
.10
250
333
2 , £14
•
1,828
•
-
5 .9 6
•
7.12
—
.09
•
.11
120
275
-
-
£17,059
1179,823
422,670
194,045
3,048
17,682
5,940
2,783
26.18
28.69
22.84
26.65
.37
.4 3
.32
.38
93
187
533
1267
196,323
—
•
2,400
•
•
8 .3 6
—
.10
133
•
- '
•
-
-
-
-
TBble TI*
Appendix - BkX EU' UE.\
County and Spade
ores in
Sample
: I CSP SUtPUt BT COUKTISS XI® BI CfixSKS OF
A ssessed
Velue
econd
Third
Fourth
I
2
**
L iberty:
*
w
farming
#
n
#
F1I r e t grade grazin g
W
Seoond *
#
Third
m
Fourth "
#
F ifth
”
. u e a e le h e ll:
F ir s t grede farming
Second *
Third
If
Fourth *
F ir s t gmde -•razing
m
-second "
n
Tiiird
#
Fourth "
e
F ifth
ctro let. :
F ir s t grade farming
m
Second "
ft
Third
Fourth ”
Tax
Levied
Value per
-ore
Tax per
Acre
*
S
$
22,382
101,983
150,492
720,167
2.766
13,538
25,888
5 ,4 6 8
10,496
108,340
88,148
65,737
2,565
541
1,356
-
-
-
-
-
Tax Paid per
cent o f Tax Paying
A b ility
-
•
6 .7 8
7.07
.12
.14
200
467
4.1 9
5 .1 3
6.2 6
.10
.10
.13
133
167
325
-
-
-
—
•
-
-
-
-
-
-
•
-
—
—
-
-
•
•
•
•
-
-
*
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
•
.12
.07
.0 8
200
175
267
-
-
11,600
45,761
b?,?01
55,427
140,645
U 8 ,0 5 5
-
1,353
3,620
4 ,476
-
4.7 6
2 .8 9
5 .2 6
-
■ -
-
-
-
—
-
-
-
—
•
3,840
6,114
53,079
34,684
505
626
13.82
5.66
.24
.10
-
400
333
T a b le T I .
Appendix -
BLX BGRlSS 4 » 81
County and Grade
.crcs in
Sample
Petroleum , JonV d.
F ir s t grade crazing
Second *
#
Third
n
Fourth *
W
F ifth
2,280
13,722
13,066
10,35*
14,158
56,752
66,730
33,360
P h i l l i r-e:
F ir s t grade farming
Second "
m
Third
#
Fourth "
48,530
37,663
11,106
F ir s t grade grazin g
M
Second "
W
Third
Fourth "
F ifth
*
y '
:'
’Y :
A ssessed
Value
Tax
Levied
Value per
Acre
Tax per
ere
£
$
$
$
■ Qf U S D , COST’ D
Tax la id in per
cant o f Tax Paying
A b ility
205
951
1,185
600
6.2 1
4.14
5 .1 0
3 .2 2
.06
.07
.05
.06
IcO
175
300
300
352,297
234,396
41,616
7,226
5,646
813
7.26
6.2 2
3 .7 5
—
.15
.15
.07
65
250
233
•
14,754
41,414
-
—
76,637
w
149,247
•
1,607
•
3 ,2 9 4
-
5.1 9
.11
183
3 .6 0
-
.08
-
267
Pondera:
f i r s t grade farming
econd #
Third
*•
'ourth ■*
16,256
24,834
40,071
221,127
197,973
429,662
4,331
3,631
8 ,550
12.11
7.97
10.72
*
.24
.15
.21
104
250
700
F ire* ?rade grazing
ft
Second "
Third
ourth "
F if t
21,607
13,644
10,176
-
70,258
75,720
72,745
•»
-
1,158
1,529
1,116
3 .2 2
5 .5 5
7.25
.06
.11
.11
67
183
275
-
-
_
-
-
Table VI.
AppeMlx - Ta
F'
v:
^
or ! AHD, no T'D .
v
County and lrade
verea in
Sample
Aeeeeeed
Value
Tax
Iarled
Value per
Acre
H ooeevelt :
F ir s t grade farming
*
Second "
W
Third
#
Fourth "
$
201,535
81,051
366,016
45,696
I
I
16,784
5,518
42,849
5,800
Ira t grade grazing
*
Second "
##
Third
*
*
Fourth *
#
F ifth
Sheridan:
F lre t grade f a r i n g
m
Second *
n
Third
"
n
Fourth ~
^ lr s t grade grazin g
at
Second ’*
m
Third
n
Fourth ”
m
F ifth
he ton: •
F ir s t grade fa m in g
at
second "
e#
Third
»•
fou rth "
-
14,060
6,56C
•
83,307
43,639
5,059
1,939
8,786
1,029
-
1,938
1,148
10.73
8 .5 2
8 .6 6
7.88
•
5 .9 3
6 .6 5
Tax per
Acre
.27
.20
.21
.1 8
Tax Paid in per
cen t o f Tax Paying
a b ilit y
68
87
350
600
•
.14
.1 8
233
450
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
—
57,210
1,920
2,700
—
48,900
4,300
•
653,795
20,103
26,012
-
80,904
422
517
-
456,790
87,395
-
14.92
10.47
9 .2 6
-
-
.37
.22
.19
161
367
633
.26
.13
433
325
•
12,737
608
9.32
5.7 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
15,272
9,640
13,236
24,538
801,411
1 8 1 ,4 5
1 5 6 ,-0 9
244,942
.22
.21
.20
.16
55
91
533
533
3,415
2,021
2,649
4,041
13.19
12.35
12.00
9.9 8
T ab le V I.
A ppendix - TAX ISJBBBfI ABD
,
tores in
^Sample
Asseared
Value
Tax
Lr Tied
I
I
County and Grade
?
Value per
Acre
T eton, c o a t’d.
F ir s t grade grazing
Second "
Third
"
»
Fourth "
"
F ifth
"
"
6,588
1,760
2,560
2,258
26,208
15,441
9,814
6,604
410
£36
139
—
105
8 .7 7
3 .8 3
.
3 .0 6
Toole:
I r e t grade farming
econd *
m
Third
Fourth *
*
36,980
66,426
•
258,420
429,207
•
•
3 ,7 7 8
6,371
—
6.6 3
6 .4 6
F ir s t gr< de grazing
Second "
9
Third
Fourth *
"
F ifth
25,166
45,940
*
120,968
272,506
-
1,768
4,250
4 .8 1
•
5 .9 3
V alley:
F ir s t rade farming
-Secozd *
*
Third
Fourth 9
9
26,200
67,469
71,036
7,084
260,672
566,781
723,046
33,647
6,349
10,923
14,102
613
F ir s t gm d e grazing
Second 9
9
Tlilrd
'our tb "
9
F ifth
24,840
2,800
5,760
10,080
—
145,882
9 ,9 2 0
23,558
32,257
_
2,850
193
416
653
*
f*x per
Acre
Tax P id in per
cen t o f
ax Paying
A b ility
I
-
.06
.13
.05
—
.CS
80
£17
125
250
—
.10
.10
167
333
.07
93
.09
•
-
225
9 .6 2
8 .4 0
10.18
4 .7 5
.22
.16
.20
.09
56
70
333
300
5 .9 7
3.4 4
4 .1 0
3 . SG
.11
•C3
.07
.06
183
200
233
300
-
-
Table V I.
appendix - TAX 1SURDF' IND SIZE OF
Oounty and Grade
Sheatlandr
'Ir a t ^rade farming
Second *
"
Third
•
"
Fourth ”
"
F ir s t grade grazin g
-eco d "
Third
Fourth *
"
F ifth
ores in
Sample
teaeas d
Value
'
AMPL
Value per
Acre
Tax per
Acre
$
I
$
-
-
-
-
5,760
21,649
73,778
185, FM
1,235
2,630
—
«.
115,705
123,521
113,854
1,705
1,735
1,534
17,560
20,506
15,776
kSD BY GRADE
Tax
Levi ed
-
—
3Y GODWIE
-
CF LAND, CQ T t D.
fa x Paid in per
cen t o f Tax ayIng
A b ility
-
-
—
—
12.81
8 .5 8
.2 1
.12
350
400
6.6 7
6 .0 2
7.22
.09
.08
.10
-
150
200
333
-
•
»
Tlable V II.
County and School
I le tr lc t
Appendix - SI I Of SASPlZ AND TAX SGRDKB FOS SXtSC
Fourth Srade Perm and
Acres In
Sample
OL DISTRICTS
A ssessed
Value
Tax
le v ie d
Value per
Acre
Tax ser
•ore
I
I
$
$
Tax in per
Ceat of Tax e y ­
ing a b il it y
L iberty County
School D ls t.
*
"
”
"
38
40
64
35
13,748
13,456
13,160
16,770
SB,307
97,436
67,365
98,542
5,600
1,931
1,735
1,875
8 .1 7
7.25
7.40
5 .8 8
.17
.14
.13
.11
567
467
433
367
66
41
8,320
26,112
61,309
150,811
890
2,233
7.37
5 .7 7
.11
.09
367
300
13
18
10,240
14,374
71,494
85,938
1,057
1,226
6 .98
5 .9 8
.10
.09
333
300
i l l County
School
'
Ist.
"
Toole Jounty
, chool
*
1 st.
"
T a b le V I I I .
appendix - SI'U:
Omersh ip -Iaeeee
and
Oradee o f land
F
^
I'
kX
U
SH FOR
! \ T: -
a cres In
Sample
a ssessed
Val tie
e e l den t emed:
F ir s t grade farming
Second *
•
Tnlrd
*
•
Fourth "
"
157,887
274,962
293,490
223,658
2,514,612
3 ,6 9 1 ,1 2 8
3,187 ,8 2 1
1,660,81?
47,785
71,236
57,722
32,896
15.99
13.43
10.66
8 .7 6
F ir s t grade grazing
Second *
*
Third
*
Fourth *
F ifth
162,300
103 ,6 » !
167,766
90,921
43,878
1 ,1 1 9 ,8 3 7
683,302
788,990
346,851
118,715
18,619
15,637
14,068
7,239
2,176
6.14
6 .5
5.
3.G1
2.71
on- eaid en t Owned:
F lr e t grade farming
Second "
"
Third
*
Fourth -
22,632
45,564
135,716
133,074
260,673
480,613
1 ,2 5 5 ,1 9 3
675,087
5,042
9,345
21,843
13,936
11.52
10.55
9.25
7.3 3
.22
.21
.16
.12
rI r e t grade grazing;
Second m
*
Third
fou rth *
F ifth
**
-
64,167
32,556
114,705
73,809
40,456
452,009
228,215
574,456
£34,825
93,914
6,984
4,624
9,406
4,732
1,590
7.04
7.01
5.01
3.1 6
2.32
.11
.14
.06
.07
.04
Tax
Levied
Value per
icre
Tax per
icre
I
*
I
.29
.26
.20
.15
.10
.15
.09
.06
.05
1
&
i
........................
j
TiBble V I I I .
a p p en d I * -
wnerehlp Glneeee
and
Grades o f land
I
A
. I
v
T •:l
aU ,
CHUOtt S i U S D ' "
^cres In
Sample
xBsesaed
Value
Ta*
Levied
Corporate i wned:
'lr s t Tade farming
oeeo nd "
if
Third
•
n
Poiarth *
14,*96
46,444
76,480
83,034
172,688
680,653
736,436
616,319
3,695
12,028
12,080
10,561
11.75
14.66
W 28
7.46
.25
.26
.15
.13
F lr e t Tade Taxing
ft
Second "
m
Third
m
Fourth *
ft
F ifth
19,509
25,911
40,970
31,469
5,043
115,065
184,081
254,815
133,461
16,620
1,475
4,536
4 ,6 1 7
2 ,7 4 8
279
5 .9 0
7.1 4
6 .2 2
4 .2 4
3 .3 0
.08
.18
.11
.09
.06
Value per
ere
T ax p e r
ere
?' le
r :.
rendix
3radee o f land
-
^rY
Acres la
Semrle
'' S f 3
c
A ssessed
Value
: A
I ' i
Tax
Irv ied
F ir s t grade far- tng
Second ■
*
Third
*
Fourth **
*
525,576
501,661
I
I
3 ,1 6 4 ,9 7 2 67,624
4 ,9 5 3 ,5 1 0 94,871
5 ,2 7 0 ,6 9 9 94,529
3 ,5 7 1 ,7 6 1 69, 06
F ir s t sorade T azin r
Second "
Third
Fourth "
"
F ifth
271,616
220,008
333,003
225,211
107,520
1,706,471
1 ,4 1 0 ,1 1 3
1,741 ,5 9 3
903,213
262,622
£02,966
.
27,596
31,312
30,666
17,626
5,010
I
X m n ? :" F O R 2 1
Value per
Acre
Tax per
Acre
:
\ .I'
IY ^ - D R l
fax in per
cen t o f rax
Paying
A b ility
Y-
I , T-
Aeseeped value in
per cen t o f re­
duction v a lu e.
I
15.59
13.07
9.9 5
7.91
.28
.25
.18
.14
70
109
300
467
70
114
332
527
6 .2 8
6.41
5.2 3
4 .0 1
2 .6 3
.10
.14
.09
.C.05
133
233
225
267
250
167
214
262
267
263
/