Whereas, Without a proper statistical basis, true comparison between States and localities is impossible, and without true comparison the determination of the real economic effects of tax laws and their administration is impossible; and

Whereas, The intent of all general tax laws is to produce equality of tax burdens among taxpayers by means of fair and accurate assessments,

Resolved, That fair and accurate assessment of real estate will be promoted by the adoption of tax maps and the classification of real estate as presented in the report of the Committee on Uniform Listing of Real Estate, submitted herewith; and

Resolved, That intelligent study, analysis, and criticism of assessments and assessment methods will be promoted by the adoption of statistical reports as presented in the report of the said Committee.

T. C. TOWNSEND, State Tax Commissioner, West Virginia, Chairman.
J. E. FROST, Member State Tax Commission of Washington.
WILLIAM S. GLASS, Member State Tax Commission of Kansas.
JOHN PERRIE, Tax Commissioner, Province of Alberta.

A. C. PLEYDELL, Secretary of New York Tax Reform Association.
L. G. POWERS, Chief Statistician, Bureau of Census.

FRANK SCHUTZ, Tax Commissioner, City of Milwaukee.
J. J. THOMAS, State Board of Equalization, Utah.

E. L. HEYDECKER, Assistant Tax Commissioner, City of New York,

Secretary.

COMMITTEE ON UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION OF REAL ESTATE.

DISCUSSION OF REAL ESTATE CLASSIFICATION

MR. T. C. TOWNSEND (West Virginia): The report of the Committee on Uniform Classification of Real Estate has been printed, and I presume it is in the hands of the delegates of the Conference. The Chairman of the Committee did not prepare this report. Whatever good or bad is found in it, the chairman, of course, has to stand for. While I indorse it, the honor of preparing the report belongs to Mr. Heydecker of New York, and he will now discuss the report to some extent.

MR. E. L. HEYDECKER (NEW YORK): As the chairman of the Committee has stated, the report is in print, and has been distributed during all the sessions of the Conference. We will, therefore, not read it, because it is lengthy.

Those who were present at the Conference at Louisville last year will remember the interest with which we listened to the paper on Uniform Classification of Real Estate read by Dr. Powers. Following that paper, a resolution was adopted under which this Committee was appointed. After considering Dr. Powers's paper, the Committee practically took that paper as the basis of its work, so that it should be read in connection with it as an introduction to the report. [This paper was reprinted in connection with the Committee report.] We have endeavored to follow the lines laid down by Dr. Powers in his suggested classifications.

The report is in three parts. In the first part we have tried to show the situation as it should be to produce the results desired. It may appear that to propose to classify real estate into eight classes is to attempt rather an elaborate classification, but it must be borne in mind that any classification of real estate, no matter how simple it might be, is an advance on the present situation, and we might as well get a good classification with eight parts as a poor one with less. It will probably be putting

just as much burden on the average local assessor if you ask him to classify under two or three different heads as to classify under eight. The classification under the eight heads suggested carries out Dr. Powers's views on the subject, and it appears to be a logical division.

Of course, if we assume that some States would enact into law the classification suggested, it is very probable that the first assessment made under this classification would be very ragged. But the provisions of law suggested in this report for the detailed report by the local assessors to the higher board, and the compilation of statistics that would follow from these detailed reports, would give to the boards of review, whether they be local boards of review, or county boards of review, or the State Tax Commission, the power to analyze the returns, to compile statistics, and to study the details of the work of the local assessors. So that we may assume that, if we have the statistical basis that would follow from the enactment of this classification, it would not be many years before the work of the local assessor would be well done, and under the careful scrutiny of those higher up they could follow out these classifications.

The second part of the report is an attempt to state the conditions as they are in the several States and Canadian Provinces. That part of the report gave the greatest difficulty to the Committee, because it was dependent upon correspondence with the authorities in the different States, and some of the information that we attempted to collect and tabulate here could be only obtained by correspondence; it could not be found in the reports or in the statutes. For example, there was nothing in the statutes or the reports that would indicate the extent to which tax maps are used. There are many cases where tax maps are used, particularly in States without any provision in the law requiring their use, unless it be a provision in some local or city charter; and all the information that we could obtain on that line is drawn from the letters which were received in response to the circular letters sent out by the Committee.

You have seen the exhibit in the headquarters room of the assessment forms and the maps. These will be sent to the office of the corresponding secretary at 29 Broadway, New York,

so that they may be a part of the archives of the Association, and available for use to any one who wishes to correspond with him. The building up of such a reference library under the direction of the Association will prove of immense benefit, and this will be, perhaps, the beginning.

In the third part of the report we have tried to indicate a line of statutory changes to bring about the results that we desire. As in the case of the proposed inheritance tax law, the amendments are drafted only in broad outline, and there is no attempt to meet the needed administrative changes in the law of each State that would be required to make them effective. That has to be worked out by the legislature of each state.

MR. A. E. JAMES (Madison, Wis.): The desirability and necessity of classification cannot be questioned, nor can the need of correct statistical work be questioned, but I do wish to rise to a question as to the specific recommendations pertaining to the eight classes into which it is recommended the land be classified. These are: land under cultivation, land capable of cultivation, land covered with timber, orchards, waste land, mineral, quarry, and land valuable by reason of oil, gas, or other deposits. The five first classifications are based upon surface indications, and the last three are based upon indications of value under the surface. As a result, the classification is not mutually exclusive. Land that is not actually being used for the purpose of exploiting mineral deposits may be under cultivation. It may properly be called waste land; it may fall under timber land. It would be desirable and I think Dr. Powers's paper, if carefully read, would indicate that his recommendation is that the classification be upon surface indications in one case, with a subclassification dealing with the subsurface indications in the other.

Also, far from believing that this proposed classification is too extensive, it seems to me it is not extensive enough to give us the proper statistical material from which to work. In the first place, the classification of timber land gives no indication of that land which is properly subject to forestry purposes and that land which is merely farmers' wood lots. There is a vast deal of difference between northern Wisconsin, largely a forestry area, and such States as Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, which practi