BULLETIN 247 JUNE 1940 RURAL PROPERTY TAX PROBLEMS IN ALABAMA By CARL M. CLARK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION of the ALABAMA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE M. J. FUNCHESS. Director AUBURN, ALA. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION'S STAFF AT. J. Pan te',, AiT. S., D. Su., Ilii'et tu of lttler inent Station 211.iiN lrown A.i ]ii. A I li ur Edii ot Al CONOI)I' :AV I N t1XI S: HienS if .Agronitmy ant ae Sail (.2t Sottil iti J.A 'I'id N' :Anma lit l'ti Il. I'l. 1). D 1) 8. - -- - - -- A_,-,, A--- I. . W ill i ii. I'lI. - lat Sit I (iii' i I' X lug c rutt it s u t r ii It I . 'Ii e IhIct r ln ta I. A lan Xrint AnsiuiAsuvat (Iinlt)A - --Aft g o A o II(' i. l. l U.-I.I.U t U 1'Ph 1). l. S. it Plan S-1 iiioo u Ia e Nluli~e D. G. 1X Ii a>t n t istlait it in.. .X i ii (It I!. S.i Il~ . It WX NitC 'itt'i. I M. XW. 'Talor S. .. I. AA,; .t . X IX I. 'I'. . i S. a in t. isis . \Il It (' , Al. S. 'I i itilti I1 oil, It. S. Ii.u , lI. S. e ilt 1. llla XI' ,. 1).%un IN(; :\VO 1'01 I.FRY: ictiti XX I tsn, .\NI)1.\L ill'SIi.U . iM. C'.Griims hati Snelm, cii \Aniimal V'. lIt V .1 It . S'. Ii-~~~ N'il' til 1 onit int ~ ~~ -- AsoitAna iS it ' It It. J. i'otl in, AX I~ititnl. M. iih A. It -X-- - -XAsistant A )lte in Itaitri Xiiim -i husm anti, I Natitiiini.t A:ri (1adluau it tunaa BOTA1'.NY ,.1 A\N! t ' IPlAN'F I' cl ittig titt. IOLO4. :. sti ( 1. . A I t I ' . 1). Asii N-a' :Agti. in :rni Itott a tit I'lu mtPahoog it n Snlsit(, Nrul .i ltoit a ti AI. .'i S. (Ciitp. Stale Dept, _-i .11thpint Eitin __ 't II)y i lon, .I. * -- Head AXgrimutu a atUit notll me N. M l . t~ litIlii, ii, 211 S. XlS - - ----- IC I t . c iaiit AXg'it'tlttt'it i~ritni .I. X} Ila c ve it nn ei.It .S PU Iti (Continued on inside luu-lc cover page.) RURAL PROPERTY TAX PROBLEMS IN ALABAMA By CARL M. CLARK Associate Agricultural Economist BULLETIN 247 JUNE 1940 Contents INTRODUCTION TRENDS IN RURAL PROPERTY TAXES Long-Tim e Trends ----Regional V ariations ---Page 4 - -- ---- ---- - --- -- ---- -- ---- 4 -- -- --- -- ---- ----- -- -- -- -- 7 10 RELATION OF RURAL PROPERTY TAXES TO PRICES, EXPENSES, PURCHASING POWER AND INCOME Farm Prices, Purchasing Power of Farm Products, and Rural Real Estate Values _______________11 Farm Receipts and Expenses ------12 Farm Income -- ---- --- -------- --- -------- --- --- - --- 13 RURAL N ature and PROPERTY TAX DELINQUENCY-15 E xtent ------------------------------ Factors Associated with Delinquency --------------------- 18 -------- 15 SALE OF RURAL PROPERTY FOR TAXES _-_ --------------- 21 Nature and Extent _________________ -- _21 Factors Associated with Tax Sales M arket for Tax-Sold Properties --------------------------- 30 ASSESSMENTS OF FARM PROPERTY FOR TAXES ________31 L eg al A sp ects -----------------------.------------------Real Estate ------------- =---33 Personal P roperty ------------------------------S U M MA R Y APPENDIX ------------------------ 26 32 -------- 40 47 -49 ----------------------------------------- Rural THE Property Tax Problems in Alabama INCREASE in tax-financed governmental services and the decline in ability to pay taxes because of lower incomes have brought about in recent years a serious economic problem in most rural areas of Alabama. Tax delinquencies and tax sales have reached enormous levels in some areas and the inability and failure to collect taxes have forced many local governmental units to postpone final payment of their obligations. They have as a result either had to issue long-term bonds and tax anticipation warrants, or have had to assume other temporary credit obligations. Revenue for the support of local governments is derived principally from general property taxes. The fact that 19,036 rural properties were sold for taxes in Alabama during the period 1928-1933 indicates that many individuals are unable or unwilling to meet their property-tax obligations. Numerous solutions to the tax problem have been offered and frequently tried, some of which have been proposed without a knowledge of the facts essential to an adequate study of their probable economic effects. Custom has been an important factor in the development of our present system of taxation and particularly so for local governmental revenue. A number of the characteristics of the present tax system may be traced back to the early part of the nineteenth century when agriculture was practically the only source of income. Thus, assessments for taxes early became associated with property which was the basis of agricultural wealth and at that time accepted as an index of ability to pay. Although many other sources of revenue now are tapped, the general property tax still holds first place in providing revenue for state and local governmental functions.** The purpose of this study is to present facts regarding the taxation of rural property with consideration of five important aspects of the problem. These are: (1) variations in the amount of taxes; (2) burden of taxes; (3) delinquency in tax payment; (4) sale of property for taxes; and (5) inequalities in assessments. The discussions here presented are directed toward bringing out the merits and injustices of the general property tax system as a source of governmental revenue. *Acknowledgements: Data from many sources and the cooperation of many individuals made this study possible. Data provided in Federal Projects, C. W. A. Project F6 and W. P. A. Project 11 collected under the supervision of Mr. Ralph B. Draughon were the foundation of this study. Many data were likewise obtained from several projects of the Department of Agricultural Economics of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station and other sources. The entire staff of the Department of Agricultural Economics rendered invaluable aid in preparing the manuscript for publication. To the individual mentioned above and to many others who directly or indirectly aided in this study the author gratefully acknowledges his obligation. **Since the period covered in thi sstudy, two important changes have been made in the Alabama tax system. First, the "Homestead Exemption Law" provides for the exemption of homesteads up to the value of $2,000 from State taxes; and second, the loss of funds through the exemption is made up by a general sales tax. Property taxes for local government purposes have not been disturbed. Trends in Rural Property Taxes The American.farmer's tax problem is largely associated with the general property tax even though he usually pays taxes in several other forms. In Alabama, inheritance taxes are of only nominal importance to most farmers and incomes of few farmers are taxed because of the relatively small volume of the farm business and the large proportion of the income received in the form of home-grown products for household use. The poll tax is frequently avoided. Taxes on fertilizer and mixed feeds are small in relation to the price paid. Finally, many farmers do not own cars and thus pay no gasoline tax or automobile license tax. Long-Time Trends Taxes per acre increased generally during the period, 1848-1935, varying from slightly more than one-half cent in 1849 to approximately twenty-one cents in 1929 (Appendix Table 1). Taxes, which on a per acre basis prior to 1867 were relatively low, averaging 1.22 cents, were assessed only on personal property and not on real estate. Personal property, a large part of which was slaves, was then considered the index of ability to pay. An important reason for these relatively low taxes was the modest demand for and provision of governmental services; for instance, one Western Alabama county collected less than $7,000 in 1848. The need for financing the reconstruction following the Civil War resulted in the addition of real estate to the tax rolls in 1867. This, and the increasing value of land which resulted from the inflation of prices in general following the Civil War, caused taxes to increase from 1.7 cents in that year to 4.7 cents per acre in 1874. The general trend from this year on was steadily downward until a low of 2.1 cents per acre was reached in 1889. Taxes continued at a relatively low level during the depression years of the 1890's but a gradual increase began after 1889 which gained in momentum through a period of forty years (Figure 1). This long sustained increase was finally terminated in 1929 when taxes per acre were approximately 21 cents,* the largest amount ever paid by Alabama rural property owners at any time in the history of the general property tax system. Following 1929 taxes began to decline reaching a level of 14.9 cents per acre in 1935 (Appendix Table 1). The most important single factor associated with this almost continuous rise in taxes per acre on farm property has been the ever increasing demand of the public for more and higher quality governmental services such as public school and highway systems. Many functions which were once considered the responsibility of *United States Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates, indicating the per acre tax on Alabama farm real estate rose to 25 cents per acre, do not necessarily conflict with the data in Appendix Table 1 since "rural" real estate contains a much higher proportion of low-valued land than does "farm" real estate. However, these data are subject to the limitations of small samples and may vary slightly from the true situation in any one year. The indicated decline in "rural" real estate taxes per acre from 1929 to 1935 amounted to 28 per cent. This may slightly exceed the actual decline since it compares with a decline in assessed value of all Alabama property of 24 per cent and with a decline in the B. A. E. estimates of "farm" real estate taxes per acre of 16 per cent. individuals are now performed by governmental agencies. Furthermore, wages and prices of goods increased generally. Finally, the Index Taxes Per Acre 280'" 240 Assessed Value Per Acre 160 120 1948 FIGURE 60 1.-Trends Acre 70 of of so Millage Real Rates 90 and 1900 Assessed Alabama, 10 Values 1846-1935. 20 and 30 Taxes 193 pei Rural Estate, recent depression stimulated the demand for greater governmental expenditures in caring for the unemployed and other dependents. These and many other changes have resulted in the upward trend of taxes. Any increase in revenue from the property tax to finance increased governmental services must come about directly through an adjustment in assessed values and/or the property tax rate.* Variations in the assessed values of farm property and millage rates are the two factors directly determining the trend in the amount of taxes per acre. The trend in these two factors has been divided into four periods for purposes of this study: 1848-1867, 1868-1890**, 1891-1915, and 1916-1935. It has been mentioned previously that the general property tax rolls before 1867 included only personal property which consisted largely of slaves. The assessed value of rural personal property per acre during this early period fluctuated widely, varying from $2.97 in 1849 to $7.41 in 1864, and averaging approximately $4.00. *Property of assessed tax rates value. are expressed a tax rate in terms of 21 of a certain mills amounts number to 2.1 of mills cents on on the each dollar of Thus, dollar asses.ed value. **Data for the period prior to 1890 were obtained from records of a very limited number of farms in from 1 to 5 counties in each year. Thus, they represent the changes for the State as a whole only in a very general way. This average was more than 80 percent of the assessed values per acre (of real estate and personal property) in 1913, the base period* (Appendix Table 1). Although the significance of these variations is decreased by the small sample used for the period of the study, they a'e probably indicative of the inflationary influence of the Civil War. The millage tax rate, during the period 1848-1867, was lower than for any other period of the study (Figure 1). The assessed value of farm property per acre began a general decline in 1869 that lasted until 1890, never returning to the high level of the Civil War period until 1910, more than forty years later. This decline in per acre assessed values, which occured despite the addition of real estate to the tax base in 1867, was probably due in no small part to the withdrawal of slaves from the rolls as a taxable item of personal property. Other contributing factors to this decline were the use, destruction, and loss of personal property during the War, and the deflation in the value of that taxable personal property remaining. Futhermore, the decline in the assessed values of farm property resulting from the above factors may have been accentuated by a less complete assessment of personal property during the latter period because of changes in the methods of assessment and in attitudes of property owners toward assessments. Thus, following the War much personal property probably escaped the tax rolls. The adjustments which were made in the procedure and requirements of property assessment in the years from the War to 1890 were significant. The tendency was for personal property to be classified into more general groups with less itemization and some forms of personal property of minor nature disappeared from the property lists entirely. Legislation also was enacted that exempted certain types of personal property from taxation, particularly items considered absolutely essential to the maintenance of the home and the production of crops. Assessment practices gradually changed until the visit of assessors to the farm for the purpose of enumerating the property ceased to be a part of the procedure, thus making escape of property from the tax rolls somewhat easier. The deflation of rural property values and the greater demand for governmental revenue following the War made necessary the increasing of the millage rate. This rate rose from 3.5 mills in 1866 to 16.7 in 1880. In no period of similar length in the history of the Alabama general property tax has there been a more rapid adjustment in tax rates. Tax rates, assessed value of rural property per acre, and taxes per acre all had declined to low levels by the depression of the 1890's. The amount of taxes assessed per acre of farm land was the *This permits base period was selected of because it is in common use in other studies and direct comparison data from different studies. lowest of any time after the Civil War period. From 1890 to 1914 fluctuations in amount of taxes, millage rates, and assessed values were relatively small though the trends of all were gradually upward. The millage rate in this period, however, increased relatively more rapidly than assessed valuation; this was also the case prior to 1890. The year 1916 introduced another period in which marked readjustments occurred in the trend of the general property tax. These readjustments were equal to or exceeded the adjustments that followed the Civil War. With the exception of 1866-1870, the increase in the tax rates from 1913 to 1920 was the most ranid and extensive of any during the period covered by this study, the index of millage rates having increased from 100 in 1913 to 129 in 1921. In the ten-year period 1921-1930, the index of millage rates increased gradually from 129 to 148. Tax rates have remained relatively constant since 1930. Although the general property tax rate for the State, as a whole, reached the level of 20 or more mills for the first time in 1925, many counties in the State were previously taxing property at the rate of 21 mills which was the maximum rate permitted by the constitutional amendment of 1921. When this maximum millage rate is reached by all counties no further increases in tax revenue due to increases in the rates may be expected. Increases in the assessed value of rural property per acre have been much greater than in millage rates since 1915. The index of assessed values per acre had by 1920 increased to 290 from the base year 1913, which was almost four times the increase that occurred in tax rates during the same period (Figure 1). Following the World War assessed values remained materially above millage rates; this relationship occurred only once before in the 88 years covered by this study and that was in the period up to and including the Civil War. This relatively higher level of assessed values over tax rates in the period following the World War may be partially explained by rising land prices during the War, and by the Constitutional limit of a maximum of 21 mills that may be assessed on property. With many counties at or near the maximum limit, the only way they may increase property taxes is by adjusting the assessed values of property to higher levels. Since 1931, however, the assessed valuation has declined to about the millage rate level. Regional Variations The upward trend in farm real estate taxes per acre in Alabama corresponded very closely to that of the United States for the period 1890 to 1930. After 1930 the trend in the amount of taxes per acre was downward, but the decline in Alabama was less rapid than for the United States (Figure 2). In the period 1890 to 1918 the trends of farm real estate taxes per acre in Alabama and the East South Central States were similar; between 1918 and 1930 taxes increased more rapidly in the East South Central States than in Ala- 8 Index 350 East South Central States .. 250\ 200 . 150 1590 95 19 00 05 1o 15 20 25 30 35 1935 FIGURE 2.-Trends of Farm Real Estate Taxes per Acre in Alabama, East South Central States and the United States, 1890-1935. bama; and after 1930 they declined more rapidly in the East South Central States than in Alabama (Appendix Table 2). For the period, as a whole, the relative position of taxes was lower in Alabama than in the East South Central States. There were marked variations from 1913 to 1929 in tax advances among the various states. In 1929 Alabama with an increase of 144 per cent ranked twenty-seventh and Florida led all states with a 537 per cent increase (Table 1). In 1935 Alabama had reached eleventh place. Though Alabama ranked high in percentage increase the amount of taxes per acre was still relatively low. Taxes on farm real estate per acre varied widely throughout the State, not only in amount, but also in their trend during the period of this study (Appendix Table 3). Before the World War, however, the amount and the changes in the trend per acre were, with few exceptions, quite uniform throughout the various regions of the State (Figure 3). In the Lower Coastal Plain taxes were generally lower and in the Limestone Valleys they * were generally higher than the State average. *There was a strong tendency for taxes per acre by counties to be uniform within a soil area. In certain periods of time wide differences between soil areas appeared in the amount of taxes per acre. The agricultural, industrial, and social development has varied widely in the different soil areas since 1910. For these reasons, the soil provinces were selected and used as a basis for determining the amount of variation in the taxes in different parts of the State. See Figure 7 for the division of the State by soil provinces. TABLE 1.-Amount and Index of Farm Real Estate Taxes Per Acre, Selected States, 1913, 1929, and 1935(1). Taxes per acre State 1913 1929 1935 Alabama _____________________________ $0.10 $0.25 $0.21 Georgia 0.13 0.30 0.23 Florida 0.14 0.92 0.60 Mississippi __________________________ 0.68 0.16 0.53 Tennessee New Jersey -------------------------------100 637 Index of taxes 1913 1929 1935 100 244 210 100 242 130 421 -------------- 100 100 100 413 316 353 325 257 264 ------------ 0.15 0.76 0.47 2.69 0.38 2.01 New Mxc 0.04 United States $0.24 Rank of Alabama (2)____ 42 0.07 $0.58 41 0.05~ 100 $0.37 100 40 -Mimeographed 186 241 27 137 154 11 5, (1)Data from Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U.S.D.A., 1937. (2) Rank among 48 states from highest to lowest. Report, Feb. Cents Per Acre 1592 95 1900 05 10 15 20 25 0 35 FIGURE 3.-Trends of Rural Real Estate Taxes per Acre by General Soil Regions of Alabama, 1892-1933 Since the period 1910-1914, the trend of taxes per acre of farm real estate has changed materially in relation to the State average, in respect to the amount of variations in taxes per acre, and in the relative position of the different soil regions. During the 20-year period beginning in 1910 taxes per acre in the Appalachian area in- 10 creased from 7.3 cents to 34.5 cents. This was the largest amount per acre in any area at any time in the history of the State. Taxes per acre in the lower Coastal Plain increased from 5.1 cents in 1910 to 14.3 cents in 1929. Taxes in this area were the lowest of any area during the years 1915-1929. The rapid rise of rural real estate taxes in the Applachian Mountain and Piedmont areas has been similar to that in other states of the South since 1913 (Figure 2). A number of factors may be offered as possible explanations for the wide regional variations in the amount of taxes per acre on farm real estate. Some of these factors are differences in social and economic progress, productivity of land, intensity in use of land, market value of land, type of taxable property available, such as coal, iron, timber, water power, industrial property, density of population and relative needs of the communities. A variation in the amount of taxes paid by farmers in different regions is not in itself to be considered as an indication of inequality in the property tax system. This variation must be related first to the amount and quality of governmental services received. Taxes low in amount per acre may be relatively high for the services rendered. The evaluation of taxes with regard to benefits received and quality of services does not come within the scope of this study. RELATION OF RURAL PROPERTY TAXES To PRICES, EXPENSES, PURCHASING POWER AND INCOME It is generally agreed that "ability to pay", which is reflected chiefly through income, is a principal criterion for the assessment of taxes. It is to be expected then that the basis for levying the general property tax is the value of property owned by a taxpayer, which is assumed to be a measure of his ability to pay taxes. Thus, the value of the property is assumed to be merely capitalized income, in which case income and property values would change proportionately. Even with changes in capitalization rates, which would tend to change the level of values, the relative values would still presumably measure the relative abilities of various property owners to pay taxes. In considering whether property values as such are an index of the owner's ability to pay taxes it should first be pointed out that property taxes do not take account of salaries and wages, of incomes in the nature of annuities, of indebtedness upon properties, of other receipts and expenses, of difference in size of family, and of other factors that are totally unrelated to property value. Furthermore, the value of rural property, especially for short periods of time, may be a very unreliable index of rural property income since this income is influenced by many factors which do not affect immediately the value of rural property, Some such factors are changes in prices paid and received by farmers, in interest rates, in property taxes, and in farm receipts and farm expenses, which, with inventory changes, determine farm income. The effect of factors unrelated to property value upon ability to pay is obvious and only indirectly connected with this study. Attention is given therefore, to some of those factors which affect rural property income directly. Data on price and purchasing power were available for the period 1910-1935, and on receipts, expenses, and incomes for the years 1927-1932. Farm Prices, Purchasing Power of Farm Products, and Rural Real Estate Values In Alabama, the period 1910-1915 was characterized by moderate fluctuations in prices, taxes, and farm real estate values (Figure 4). During these years, however, fluctuations were not uniform as prices received by farmers declined, prices paid by farmers remained relatively constant with a resulting decline in the purchasing power FIGURE 4.-Trends of Farm Prices, Taxes, Real Estate Values, and Purchasing Power in Alabama, 1910-1935 or farm products. From 1912 to 1915 farm real estate values increased slightly and taxes increased materially. In the period 19161920 prices received by farmers increased very rapidly; prices paid by farmers increased less rapidly, thus increasing purchasing power. Taxes per acre on farm real estate increased rapidly during the period but not so rapidly as prices. From 1920 to 1932 farm prices fluctuated widely reaching in 1932 their lowest point for any year of the period studied. In the meantime, farm real estate taxes per 12 acre increased to their highest point for the entire period. Farm real estate value movements tended to reflect somewhat slowly and mildly the wide fluctuations of farm prices and farm purchasing power. From 1932 to 1935, farm prices and purchasing power increased, farm real estate taxes declined, and after 1933 farm real estate values made gains. These movements indicate that farm taxes tend to move up or down in direct response to major changes in prices of products sold and of farm real estate. However, changes in taxes tend to occur more slowly than prices, and thus the tax burden is distinctly lessened in periods of general price advances and distinctly increased in periods of price declines. Farm Receipts and Expenses A few studies which permit a comparison of taxes with farm receipts and expenses were made of groups of farms in Alabama during the period 1927-1932. Tenant farmers were omitted from this comparison because their property taxes were usually negligible. Farmers in the Sand Mountain area of northeastern Alabama paid from 2.1 to 2.5 per cent of their total farm receipts in taxes in the pre-depression years of 1927-1929, but they paid up to 6 per cent in the three following depression years (Table 2). Taxes deTABLE 2.-Taxes Paid Per Farm and Per Cent Taxes Are of Total Receipts, Crop Receipts, and Cash Expenses for Sand Mountain Area, Alabama, 1927-1932(1). Per cent taxes are ofYear 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 (1)Unpublished Taxes paid $38 37 37 39 36 34 data, Dept. Agr. Total receipts 2.5 2.1 2.3 3.4 4.6 6.0 Economics, Alabama Crop receipts 3.3 2.8 3.4 5.4 3.1 10.1 Polytechnic Institute. Cash expenses 9.0 6.3 5.5 6.1 8.1 11.1 creased more slowly than receipts, thus a greater percentage of the total receipts was required for taxes. In 1929 taxes of $37 per farm amounted to 5.5 per cent of the cash expenses, but by 1932 with taxes down to $34 per farm, they comprised 11.1 per cent of the total cash expenses. Farm expenses other than taxes were obviously reduced to a greater extent than taxes as the depression progressed. In a Black Belt study for 1929, it was found that taxes required about the same percentage of total farm receipts as in the Sand Mountain Area, but made a larger percentage of cash expenses than in the Sand Mountain Area (Table 3). Total cash expenses in relation to receipts were lower in the Black Belt than in the Sand Mountain Area, largely because of the heavy fertilizer expenses incurred in the latter area. 13 TABLE 3.-Per Cent Property Taxes are of Family Income, Farm Receipts, and Cash Expenses by Size of Farm in the Peanut, Black Belt, and Sand Mountain Areas, Alabama, 1928 or 1929(1). Acres in property Class interval Average Property taxes per farm Per cent property taxes are of Income to farm capital, All farm Cash farm expenses receipts labor and family Peanut Area - 1928 2 3 4 3 1929 2 3 4 3 1929 2 2 3 2 5 5 6 5 8 12 9 9 6 6 6 6 100 and less 101 - 200 201 and over Average 100 and less 101 - 300 301 and over Average 39 and less 40 - 79 80 and over Average 81 162 470 297 57 200 790 409 37 59 129 73 $ 31 3 5 65 147 10 $ 99 8 Black Belt Area $ 12 3 6 58 8 203 $106 7 Sand Mountain Area $ 23 4 32 4 6 59 $ 37 5 (1)By the Peanut Area is meant the 9 southeastern counties of Alabama, all of which are in the Lower Coastal Plain. Farm Income A study of the relationship of farm income to taxes probably is most significant when approached from the standpoint of whether farmers, as a group, are bearing more than their share of taxes, or whether some farmers are bearing more than others. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to compare burdens of taxes on farmers with those on other social groups. Representative and valid comparisons, however, may be made of burdens of taxes on the income of groups of farmers under various circumstances and in various sections of Alabama and the nation. The Census of 1930 provides a basis for comparing property taxes with net cash farm income for the year 1929 by states and by counties.* In Alabama only 4.4 per cent of the net cash farm income was required for taxes. This was less than that in any other southeastern state (Table 4). Georgia with 5.7 per cent was next lowest while Florida was highest with 14.1 per cent. Florida was the only southeastern state which exceeded the national average in this respect. The percentage of net cash income absorbed by property taxes was relatively uniform among the different farming areas of Alabama, since net cash income and property taxes varied more or less *Net cash farm income as here used is the value of products sold penditures for labor, fertilizer, and feed as recorded in the Census. or traded less ex- 14 TABLE 4.-Net Cash Farm Income and Taxes on all Farm Property Per Acre, and Per Cent of Net Cash Income Required for Taxes, Southeastern States and the United States, 1929(1). Net cash Taxes per Per cent Statc income per acre (3) required acre (2) for taxes Alabama-- .__________ _________________7 $0.31 4.4 G eorgia -----------------------------7 0.40 5.7 M ississippi -------------------------12 0.69 5.8 Louisiana ---------------------------------------12 0.70 5.8 'ennessee .._________________---------- ----8 9.52 6.5 Virginia -------------- ------- --------------- --- 7 0.47 6.7 South Carolina -8----------------------0.57 7.1 Kentucky - ----------------------------7 0.51 7.3 North Carolina ----9 0.75 8.3 Florida 8 1.13 14.1 United States -----------------------------------$ 8 $0.86 10.8 --------------- (1)Data from 1930 census. (2)Net cash income includes cash income reduced by the sum of cash expenditures fur feed, fertilizer, and labor as recorded in the census reports. Data apply to all farms. (3)Taxes per acre apply only to owner operated farms, but are believed to be typical of taxes on all farm property. proportionately between areas. Within areas, however, there was considerable variation from county to county in the precentage of net cash income required for taxes. In counties in which the farmers' net cash income per acre exceeded $10, only 3.5 per cent was required on the average for taxes; while in counties with net cash farm incomes of $5 to $9 per acre, the percentage was 3.6 per cent, and in counties with incomes of less than $5 per acre, it was 4.6 per cent (Table 5). Thus the burden tended to be heaviest in counties of low cash farm incomes, even though actual taxes per acre were generally greater in counties having high per acre incomes. TABLE 5.-Average Net Cash Income and Real Estate Taxes per Acre, and Per Cent of Net Cash Income Required for Taxes in Alabama Counties Grouped by the Amount of Net Cash Income per Acre, 1929. Net cash income per acre (1) Less than $5 $5 - $9 $10 and over State (1)Snurce: Appendix Table 5. Number of cuunties 5 52 Average net Taxes on land cash income and buildings per acre per acre $ 3 7 $0.15 0.24 Per cent required for taxes 4.6 3.6 10 67 12 $ 7 dale 0.40 $0.25 from 19301Census. 3.5 4.4 Other derived Within certain areas a further comparison may be made of the percentage of farm income absorbed by taxes on small and large farms. Owners of the larger farms paid a distinctly greater percentage of their income for taxes than owners of small farms in the Peanut, Black Belt, and Sand Mountain areas of Alabama (Table 3). On the larger farms a much greater percentage of income is at- 15 tributed to capital, as a rule, than on small farms; and, conversely, much less is attributed to the personal labor of the operator and his family. Since the property tax is not levied on labor earnings, the apparently unequal tax may well reflect a more or less equal contribution of capital to taxes on the part of owners of small and large farms. It should be pointed out here that uniformity of taxes by areas of the State is not necessarily expected or desired since services obtained through tax payments are not always comparable. Society, as a whole, must be concerned, however, if taxes become the active factor which finally forces worthy farmers to give up their farms. Farm taxes, even though light in total amount, may bear heavily upon farm owners since the average farm owner has usually no chance to raise his rent or prices of his products when he is assessed higher taxes. Furthermore, most farmers have relatively small cash incomes, and thus are among those to whom the payment of even a modest percentage of their cash incomes as taxes calls for sacrifice. RURAL PROPERTY TAX DELINQUENCY The certainty of yielding annual revenue, which has been one of the chief merits of the general property tax for many decades, is weakened when wholesale delinquencies in tax payments occur, as was the case in the depression years following 1930. The effects are very disrupting to governmental agencies, particularly local units that depend more fully on funds from this source. Payment of interest on bonds is delayed or omitted with resulting impairment of credit; schools are closed or school terms shortened; roads and bridges are poorly maintained; health work is handicapped and many other governmental activities are curtailed. When delinquency results in tax sales or forfeiture of property to the State, private property holdings are decreased. Tax delinquency, which was once considered a problem peculiar to cutover lands and abandoned acreages of poor lands, has become state-wide and includes productive rural land. Nature and Extent* Taxes are due in Alabama on October 1, but no penalty for nonpayment is incurred until after January 1. Interest, at the rate of 6 per cent, is charged if the taxes are not paid by January 1,** and delinquent property is usually sold during July or August. At any time during this period the owner has the privilege of removing the delinquency by paying his taxes plus the delinquent costs. The *A copy was made from the county records for the five-year period 1928-32 of all delinquent forms of rural property except properties of less than three acres in size. Properties in incorporated or platted areas for urban purposes were not included in the tabulations. **The rate of interest on delinquent taxes was 8 per cent during the period of the study. 16 property owner must be notified of his delinquency not less than twice before the time of sale. In 1932 about 60,000 rural properties in Alabama embracing more than one-third of the land in the State, were delinquent in taxes (Appendix Table 5). In 13 counties more than one-half of the area was delinquent. The range in delinquency was from 2 per cent of the land area in Randolph County to 69 per cent in Dale County (Figure 5)*. More than twice as many properties, twice as much land, and twice as much taxes were delinquent in 1932 as in 1928. Nevertheless, because of readjusted tax values the total delinquent taxes in 1932 were slightly reduced from the 1931 level despite increased numbers of delinquent properties and acres. In 1932 total taxes delinquent amounted to $1,999,615 and covered 59,484 properties including 11,161,454 acres of land (Appendix Tables 5 to 7). During the period of this study approximately 90 per cent of all tax-delinquent properties in Alabama outside of incorporated areas were classified as farms.** Washington and Conecuh Counties were the only counties in the State with the number of tax-delinquent properties utilized for non-agricultural purposes exceeding the number of tax-delinquent farms. This relatively low percentage of the total tax-delinquent property indicated as being farms in these two counties might have been in part due to a more accurate classification of properties on the tax roll, but was probably caused more by the relatively low percentage of real estate in farms. Mineral land was found tax delinquent most frequently in Blount, Cullman, Walker, Tuscaloosa, Bibb, and Coosa Counties.** Tax-delinquent timber lands appeared on the tax rolls of counties near the southern border of the State, including Geneva, Escambia, Washington, and Conecuh. In the north central part of the State the counties of Coosa, Shelby, St. Clair, and Cullman had between 6 and 10 per cent of the total delinquent land in timber. The counties of Jackson, Madison, Franklin, Marion, Walker, Tuscaloosa, and Pickens had less than 5 per cent of tax-delinquent rural properties classified as timber land.** Available data indicate that tax delinquencies in Alabama probably reached, unprecedented high levels during the recent depres*A certain amount of error exists in these results. The total area of the county includes area in rivers, roads, incorporated areas, publicly owned parks, and game and forest reserves. The area in these uses varies in relative importance from county to county. The delinquent acreage includes only rural lands that are assessable for taxation. The error that may be created by this condition in the data is not sufficient to destroy the significance of the variations found existing in the percentage of country area tax delinquent. **Rural properties include properties classified as farm, unimproved, mineral, timber, and waste land. No great amount of confidence can be placed in the county records in reOften notations are not made on gard to the classification of properties by type or use. Sometimes the appearance of improvements the records as to the use or type of property. on the records may be the only information available to indicate that the property is a farm. Rather careful checking on the part of the field staff, often against sources of information other than the tax assessor's records was necessary to secure this information. Although many errors exist in the data, they are sufficiently accurate to show that the delinquency problem in rural areas is predominately associated with farm property. Records for Jefferson and Montgomery Counties were not available. 17 LEGEND Less than 15% S : 15 - 29 30-44 45 - 59 State - 34 per cent 60 and over FIGURE 5.-Percentage of Land Area Tax-delinquent by Counties, Alabama, 1932. 18 sion years. After 1932, tax sales in Alabama decreased rapidly and it is probable that delinquencies which gave rise to sales also decreased in importance. Factors Associated with Delinquency Only the more apparent causes for the increase in tax delinquency will be considered. For convenience these causes may be combined in three general groups: (1) those associated with the decline in income from unfavorable economic circumstances; (2) those associated with the human factor; and (3) those associated with the administrative weakness of the general property tax laws. The most important cause of tax delinquency during the period of the study was the decline in the farmer's cash income which in 1932 was about one-third of that received in 1929 Tax delinquences more than doubled from 1928 to 1932. While the improvement in farm incomes since 1932 has probably relieved the delinquency situation to some extent, the problem still remains a serious one. Inequity and lack of responsiveness on the part of the general property tax system to changing economic conditions of farmers are indicated by the volume of tax delinquency. The inflexibility of the tax system coupled with the farmers' relatively heavy investment in land and the slow rate of turnover of their operating funds causes them to suffer in paying taxes during periods of declining prices. Many factors associated with income might be related indirectly to tax delinquency. The non-resident or speculative owner, for example, becomes an important factor in tax delinquency during depressions because his holdings are frequently abandoned when the incomes decline or prospects for income disappear. This condition was important in some areas of Alabama, especially in the Gulf Shore Counties, around the larger cities (particularly the industrial cities), and in the Tennessee Valley area adjacent to the Muscle Shoals development. Property taxes were delinquent on a greater percentage of the larger rural holdings than of the smaller units. In the representative counties studied 6.6 per cent of all the property holdings were less than 20 acres in size, but only 2.8 per cent of the delinquent properties were in this group (Table 6). Rural properties between 20 and 100 acres in size included 57.4 per cent of all holdings and 48 5 percent of all tax delinquent properties. About one-fourth of all rural holdings ranged from 100 to 260 acres in size, but nearly 35 per cent of the delinquent properties were in this group. About 10.2 per cent of all rural properties, and about 14 1 per cent of all delinquent properties were over 260 acres in size. Tax delinquency may be divided into two general types on the basis of cause: that of a short-term nature, and that of a chronic nature. In this study it was assumed that short-term tax delinquen- 19 TABLE 6.-Relation of Size of Tax Delinquent Properties to the Assessed Valuation per Acre, Per Cent of Assessed Value in Land, Per Cent of Land Not in Crops, and the Per Cent of Tax Delinquent Properties and all Properties in Each Size Group, Six Counties, Alabama, 1932(1). Per cent of assessed value in lands (3) 43 57 71 77 80 82 82 85 86 Per cent of land not in crops (4) 17 18 27 46 66 75 81 84 90 Size of property (2) (acres) 3-9 10-19 20-49 50-99 100-174 175-259 269-499 500-999 1000 and over (1) (z) (3) (4) (5) Assessed valuation per acre (3) $104 39 17 13 11 9 9 9 7 Per cent of each size Tax delinquent properties 1.2 1.6 20.5 28.0 24.3 10.3 8.7 3.8 1.6 total in group All properties (5) 1.4 5.2 30.9 26.5 18.4 7.4 6.3 2.5 1.4 Blount, Cullman, Dallas, Fayette, Houston, and Pike Counties. Properties less than 3 acres omitted. Includes only those tax delinquent properties for which the value of both land and buildings was quoted. Source: United States Census, 1930. Alabama Relief Administration and Works Computed from data obtained by th Progress Administration. cies were those associated with temporary fluctuations in farmers' incomes; chronic delinquencies were those resulting from either the inability of the owners over a period of years to pay the taxes on overtaxed or unprofitable property, or the indifference of property owners toward their tax obligations. It was assumed that most of the tax delinquencies in 1928 were of a chronic nature since in this year business conditions and farmers' incomes for the State, as a whole, were at a high level. On the other hand most of the delinquencies of 1930, 1931, and 1932 were cof a short-term nature when farmers' incomes declined drastically. Many of the chronic tax-delinquent properties of 1928 were again delinquent during the years following; 63 per cent were again delinquent in 1929, 58 per cent in 1930, 55 per cent in 1931, and 53 percent in 1932 (Table 7). As a matter of fact, 25 per cent of those properties tax-delinquent in 1928 were delinquent five times for the entire period 1928-1932; 46 per cent were delinquent four or more times, 62 per cent three times or more, and 80 per cent two or more times. Apparently there was little or no tendency for the differences in tax delinquency in any of its various forms to be associated with any specific region, soil type, type of farming, topography, or any of the many other factors with which it was compared. It appears that many of the wide differences from county to county in the amount of delinquent taxes, particularly those of a chronic nature, are the result of variations in the administration of the tax laws. 20 TABLE 7.-Per Cent of 1928 Tax-delinquent Properties That Were Delinquent Again in 1929, 1930, 1831, 1932 and 1933, Selected Counties and State, Alabama. County 1929 Baldwin 11.2 Chambers 59.9 Clarke 31.7 Dale 81.4 Limestone _6______________ 67.0 Marshall 59.2 Pickens 62.1 Wilcox 75.9 State 63.4 (1)Data not available. ----------------------- -----------------61.6 1930 5.1 44.4 33.9 74.6 48.8 53.5 73.6 57.6 1931 9.2 41.3 44.3 69.1 43.2 56.1 59.6 67.7 54.3 1932 4.1 36.2 48.3 1933 (1) (1) (1) 70.2 44.5 60.4 60.5 58.1 (1) (1) 55.2 65.0 52.7 63.4 (1) The State probably does not profit from tax delinquency and may frequently suffer losses, but it does not necessarily follow that the individual real estate owners profit by borrowing from the State by allowing their taxes to become delinquent. As a matter of fact this method of borrowing, the charges for which included not only the annual interest rate of 8 per cent, but also certain fees and penalties that may be collected by county officials, cost the taxpayer in five Alabama Counties an average of approximately 14 per cent per annum during the period 1929-1933 (Table 8). The annual rate varied widely in the counties studied, being only 8.6 per cent in Blount County as compared with 22.3 per cent in Fayette County. Likewise, the annual cost of delinquency varied widely from month to month within the same county. For example, the average cost for real estate owners paying delinquent taxes in TABLE 8.-Relation of the Total Cost of Tax Delinquency Expressed as a Per Cent of the Taxes Assessed on Property of Delinquent Owners to the Month in Which Delinquent Taxes Were Paid, Five Counties, Alabama, 1929-1933. Month in which delinquent taxes were paid Cost of tax delinquency as per cent of taxes assessed (1) County Five Fayette Cullman 18.0 10.4 9.8 Dallas Pike Blunt (2) counties January February March 47.5 ______ 12.5 ---------- 48.7 21.8 15.4 70.3 54.4 14.2 7.0 7.9 6.6 12.0 11.4 12.0 April May ___________ June ---------- 17.3 24.5 43.3 13.0 14.9 30.5 13.3 14.0 26.8 7.6 7.7 7.2 6.8 17.0 11.8 13.2 21.7 July ___________ 28.9 27.1 13.0 August September October November December ------_____ _____ 13.2 13.0 18.1 14.9 18.4 17.8 5.6 14.0 10.7 12.0 7.8 8.9 7.7 7.8 6.4 16.2 36.2 8.6 9.8 14.2 11.4 11.2 32.8 8.0 22.3 23.4 20.4 17.3 25.2 0.1 15.2 7.7 7.9 10.3 17.0 5.3 8.6 17.8 7.1 13.8 Weighted annual (1)Tht, cost of tax delinquency includes the annual interest rate of 8 per cent collected as required by law plus the penalties that may, be collected by county officials. Percentages are calculated on an annual basis. (2) Delinquent taxes for 19 32 omitted. 21 Fayette County varied from 47.5 per cent on an annual basis for those paying in January to 8.0 per cent for those paying in December. These variations in cost of tax delinquency from county to county and from month to month were due partly to the practices of county officials in collecting fees and penalties, to differences in length of time taxes were left unpaid, and to the variation in the amount of taxes assessed. Many, if not all, of those chronic rural real estate tax delinquencies associated with unproductive lands could be eliminated by making the badly needed reductions in assessed valuations. Although the original assessment of some of these properties may have been faulty, it is highly probable that the assessment of many now delinquent lands was accurate and just when first made, but through gradual deterioration of the property is now unjust and inequitable. The cutover areas are good examples of this latter situation. Greater flexibility and adjustment in the assessment of individual properties would tend to alleviate tax-delinquency caused by temporary declines in farmers' incomes and by repeated overtaxation. Chronic tax-delinquency caused by the indifferent taxpayer is difficult to correct because the undeserving cannot be isolated from the deserving to be coerced into prompt payment. County officials have tended to be lenient in the administration of tax laws. With the State's inherent desire not to become a property owner, the tax laws have been designed and administered intentionally to give property owners in difficulty every possible opportunity to meet their tax obligations. This liberal policy has, however, led many property owners to postpone payment of taxes to the latest possible date. Since leniency frequently results in taxpayers being slow to meet their tax obligations when due, strict enforcement of the tax laws might be the most effective way of holding delinquency at a reasonable level. SALE OF RURAL PROPERTY FOR TAXES The chief objective of tax sales is to bring about the final payment of taxes. The period of delinquency that precedes tax sales serves to give the owner ample opportunity to protect his interests. Failure of the property owner to pay taxes during this period gives the State a right to collect through the sale of his property. Thus, a tax sale represents an attempt on the part of the State to balance a property owner's rights on one side against his social obligations on the other. Nature and Extent The amount of rural property sold for taxes increased tremendously in Alabama during the period 1928-1933. In 1928, 570 pieces of property involving 71,471 acres were sold for taxes (Table 9). In 1932 the sales reached a peak of 1,126,310 acres, or they increased 22 TABLE 9.-Acres Tax-delinquent, Acres Sold for Taxes, Per Cent of Total Acres Tax-delinquent and Sold for Taxes, and Per Cent of Delinquent Properties and Acreage Sold for Taxes, Alabama, 1928-1933. Acres Taxdelinquent 5,334,857 6,826,945 8,142,388 9,793,577 11,161,454 (1) 8,251,844 Sold for taxes 71,471 337,565 378,472 540,792 1,126,310 703,782 490,922 Total acres taxdelinquent 16.3 20.8 24.8 29.8 34.0 (1) 25.1 Per cent of Delinquent Total acres properties Delinquent sold for sold for acres sold taxes taxes for taxes 0.2 2.1 1.3 1.0 3.1 4.9 1.2 4.6 4.6 1.6 7.2 5.5 3.4 11.3 10.1 2.1 (1) (1) 1.5 6.5 5.9 Year 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 All(2) (1)Data not available. (2)1933 omitted. approximately 1500 per cent over 1928. In 1928 only $20,430 was due on rural real estate sold for taxes as compared with $246,053 in 1932 (Appendix Table 9). About 6,700 properties were involved in the sales of 1932. In 1933, tax sales showed a material decline with 4,880 properties comprising 703,782 acres moving through tax sale channels. Only 2 per cent of the tax-delinquent properties in 1928 were sold for taxes as compared with approximately 11 per cent in 1932. This increase in the percentage of tax-delinquent lands sold for taxes was due largely to the decline of incomes during the depression years, which made it impossible for many owners of delinquent property to meet their tax obligations before the date of tax sales. Data for the years prior to 1928 on the amount and importance of tax delinquency in Alabama comparable with those obtained for the period 1928-1933 were not available. A record of farm real estate transfers by tax deed for the period 1916-1927 was obtained in 24 counties widely distributed over the State. This record did not, however, include the sales of cutover lands, timber, mineral, and wasteland, and to that extent was not comparable. These data indicate that the sale of farm real estate for taxes was a very minor problem prior to 1920 (Table 10). The depression beginning in 1920 marked the starting point of the tax sale problem which reached a high peak in the depression following 1930. Tax sales of farm real estate in the 24 counties for the period 1928-1933 were practically double the amount of these sales during the years 1922-1927. Farm tax sales reached a peak of approximately 20 per thousand farm holdings in 1933 (Table 11). The number of farms sold per thousand holdings was 13 in 1934, 7 in 1935. and 4 in 1936. The trend may have continued slightly downward after 1936 since farm incomes continued to improve, but the number sold per thousand probably was still considerably above the pre-depression period. 23 TABLE 10.-Number of Farms, Total Acres, and Price per Acre of Farm Real Estate Transferred by Tax Deed, 24 Counties, Alabama, 1916-1933(1). Year 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 Totals ~___ Number of farms 1 1 0 0 8 3 16 28 6 50 28 23 28 54 41 52 43 71 453 Total acres 148 40 0 0 600 90 1,930 2 715 6,155 4,569 1,843 2,547 2,194 4,689 2,680 6,043 3,813 17,913 57,969 Price per acre $0.06 0.20 0.16 0.29 0.13 0.22 0.16 0.39 0.34 0.24 0.28 0.47 0.45 0.41 0.55 0.15 $0.28 V (1)The transfer of farm real estate by tax deed does not occur until the two-year redemption period that follows a tax sale has expired. TABLE 11.-Number of Farms Changing Ownership by Forced Sale Due to Tax Delinquency per One Thousand Farms, Alabama, Other Southeastern States, and United Stat s, 1926-1936(1). East South Central States 4.0 5.8 5.4 4.0 4.9 10.0 26.0 27.1 20.2 12.0 8.9 Year 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 Alabama 1.8 1.5 1.5 1.2 1.5 5.5 15.8 19.9 13.0 7.0 4.0 Georgia 6.6 8.2 6.0 7.7 5.5 5.9 10.0 13.7 11.9 6.5 4.0 Tennessee 2.7 4.5 3.8 2.3 2.3 3.6 10.1 14.5 8.4 5.6 4.1 Mississippi 7.1 10.4 8.3 8.9 10.5 23.8 65.8 67.7 59.9 34.3 26.2 United States 4.2 5.1 5.2 4.7 5.1 7.4 13.3 15.3 11.1 7.3 5.9 (1)Sou ce: "The Farm Real Estate Situation," Circular No. 417, October 1936, United States Department of Agriculture. For the years 1926-1929 the sale of farm property for taxes was proportionately less in Alabama than in her neighboring states of the United States. The number of farm holdings sold in Alabama averaged only about one and one-half per thousand as compared with from two to five times that number in adjoining states. Tax sales per thousand farm holdings in the East South Central States were about equal to the average for the United States for the years 1926-1929. The tax sales per thousand farm holdings in Alabama increased during the depression years of 1931, 1932, and 1933 to where they were equal to or greater than those of any of the 24 neighboring states except Mississippi. There the number of farm sales reached a peak in 1933 of about 68 per thousand. The highest for the United States in any year was 15.3 sales per thousand, 27.1 for the East South Central States, and 19.9 for Alabama. The transfer of farm real estate by tax deed in Alabama is normally relatively unimportant when compared with the number of farm holdings transferred through other foreclosures. In 1932 and 1933 more than one-third of all forced sales were tax sales. In 1928, sales of rural property for taxes tended to be concentrated largely in two areas of the State; first, on the Coastal Plain in the southwestern corner of the State; and second, on the rougher areas of the Piedmont Plateau and in the northeast corner of the State. In 1929 ,the problem of tax sales had become more intense in the southwestern corner of the State-particularly in Mobile and Baldwin Counties. The sales of property for taxes had also spread over the northeastern part of the State covering a greater part of the Piedmont Plateau, and extending over into the Limestone Valley areas and the upper edges of the Appalachian area. The Black Belt, Upper Coastal Plain, the lower edge of the Appalachian Mountains and the north side of the Lower Coastal Plain did not appear in the areas of heavy tax sales until well into the depression period. Even in these years, tax sales were not as numerous in the central areas of the State as in those areas in which tax sales first made their appearance in the pre-depression period. The counties with the largest number of tax sales in 1928 and 1929 really indicated the areas of the State that were to be most heavily distressed with tax sales in the depression years. The proportion of the total area sold for taxes varied widely from county to county in 1932. Baldwin County led all counties of the State with 11.1 per cent of the total area sold for taxes and Washington County came second with 9.4 per cent (Figure 6). The counties with the smallest percentage of their total area sold for taxes were Wilcox with 0.3 per cent, and Greene with 0.4 per cent. Those counties in the central part of the State tended to have the smallest percentage of their total area sold while those in the northern and southern portions of the State experienced the greatest amount of selling of rural lands for taxes. In the southern part of the State, Mobile and Baldwin Counties alone accounted for more than one-fifth of all the properties in the State sold for taxes. The number of rural properties sold for taxes seemed to have little or no relation to the number of tax delinquencies (Figures 5 and 6). The tax sale problem in Alabama is largely a farm problem as over 15,000 of 16,462 pieces of rural property sold for back taxes during the period 1928-1933 were classed as farms (Table 12). Seven hundred ninety-nine were classed as unimproved properties, 414 as timber lands, 84 as mineral lands, and 163 as wastelands. The farm properties sold for taxes were smallest averaging less than 150 acres in size, while mineral properties were largest averaging near- 25 6,LEGEND [ -.Less than one per cent I3 5 - 6 S6 & over FIGURE 6.-Per Cent of Land Area Sold for Taxes, by Counties, 1932 26 TABLE 12.-Number of Properties, Total Acreage, Per Cent of Total Acreage, Acres per Property and Assessed Value per Acre of Rural Property Sold for Taxes, by Type of Property, Alabama, 1928-1933(1). Properties sold for taxes Per cent of total Acres per Acres acres property 2,211,348 84.3 147 130,447 5.0 163 70,495 2.7 170 91,080 3.4 1,084 120,435 4.6 739 2,623,805 100.0 159 Assessed value per acre $9 4 7 4 4 $8 Type of property Farm Unimproved Timber Mineral Waste All Number 15,002 799 414 84 163 16,462 (1)Only properties which were classified by type were included in this table. All properties sold numbered 19,036 (Appendix Table 8). ly 1100 acres. Nearly 85 per cent of the total acreage sold was classified as farm land. The county records were not always found to be complete and accurate in the classification of property by type or use. Nevertheless, they are considered sufficiently reliable to show the relative importance of the problem. Factors Associated with Tax Sales The sale of property for back taxes is frequently associated with the earning power of the property. It was the change in this relationship that accounted for the great increase in the number of properties sold for taxes during the period 1928-1933. The amount of taxes per acre even declined some during this period, but the decline in the income or earning power of property was proportionately much greater. Tax sales were heavier in some parts of the State than in others often tending to be concentrated in relatively small areas (Figure 7). Two approaches were utilized in determining the factors associated with the unequal distribution of tax-sold rural property throughout the State. First of all, a trip was made through selected counties to observe variations in tax-sale concentration. Use of the land, topography, condition of farms, and class of people were some of the factors studied on the observation trip. Tax assessors, collectors, and other county officials were interviewed in seeking an explanation as to why tax sales were heavier in some areas than in others. The second approach was through a study of beat data. Various data available by beats in the 1929 U. S. Census and other national and state sources were then related to the percentage of the beat area sold for taxes. Tax sales were most common in southwestern Alabama. Factors associated with this condition in this area were diverse. In many sections the soil is unproductive from the farming standpoint. Therefore, when the original cover of timber was removed and farmers could no longer get part-time work in the lumber industries, many were unable to pay taxes out of farm operations. 27 L EG EN D KLimestone Valleys =~ Piedmont Plateau =~i Appalachian Mountains 1151 =1 Upper Coastal Plain Black EI =Rve Flood Plain Terrace W Prairie Belt Lower Coastal Plain Each dot represents four rural properties sold for taxes. FIGURE 7.-Rural Real Estate Properties Sold for Taxes, 1928-1932. 28 In Baldwin and Mobile Counties hopes were high for the development of a profitable citrus industry and many speculators bought cheap land for this use only to have their hopes blasted by the heavy freeze of 1927. Much of the land bought for this purpose was too unproductive for general farming and was eventually sold for taxes. The Florida land boom which reached its peak and finally broke shortly before this study began had spread to southwestern Alabama and led to much speculation and overcapitalization. The deflation left many speculators with little or no hope of obtaining returns on their investment with the result that they no longer continued paying taxes on the land. Tax sales were unusually numerous in the area about Muscle Shoals. Current post-war development of the area, as well as the anticipation of continued rapid development, led to the breaking up of neighboring farms into small units and promotional sales of these units to many investors. Retardation of the development during the depression years discouraged many speculators who, finding little ready market, let their holdings sell for taxes. Other areas in which speculation played a less prominent part were in poor condition to meet the depression and farmers lost much land by the tax-sale route. Steel mills, for instance, reduced their operations to such a low volume during the depression that many part-time farmers in the neighborhood who depended on some work in mills or mines found their incomes reduced so radically that they lost their holdings. Timber was removed from some areas along mountain ranges, thus eliminating part-time work for many nearby farmers. Fundamentally unproductive and risky lands, such as rough lands, deep sand, overflow areas, and poorly drained land often became tax-delinquent and were sold for taxes. Poor location of the farms in relation to markets, schools, and churches, as well as lack of aggressiveness of the owners, affected the frequency of sales. The depression following 1929 aggravated conditions which already existed, but seldom was the only factor responsible for a large volume of tax sales in any area. The problem of tax sales is largely confined to properties of low assessed value per acre as a little more than 50 per cent of the properties and more than 70 per cent of the total acreage sold in the State during 1928-1933 were assessed at values of $9 or less per acre (Table 13). Properties assessed at $30 or more per acre included only 2 per cent of the total acreage sold. Of the farm lands sold for taxes the average assessed value was $9 per acre, timber lands, $7 per acre, and unimproved, mineral, and wastelands, $4 per acre. Low land values per acre are frequently associated with large holdings. 29 TABLE 13.-Relation of Assessed Valuation Per Acre of Property Sold for Taxes to the Number of Properties Sold, Acres Per Property, Per Cent of Total Acres Sold, Yield of Lint Cotton, and Population Per Square Mile, Alabama, 1928-1933. Assessed valuation per acre $ 9 and less 10 - 29 30 - 59 60 - 89 90 and over Number of properties sold 9,867 7,439 1,063 317 380 Number of acres per property 211 105 42 27 19 Per cent of total acres sold for taxes 71.2 26.8 1.5 0.3 0.2 Yield of lint cotton per acre(1) 189 204 215 220 209 Population per square mile(2) 31 47 66 99 221 (1)1928-1933 average yield of lint cotton in pounds per acre in beats where properties sold were located. (2)Population density of beats in which properties were located. Data indicate, however, that there was no general tendency for properties of any particular size to be sold proportionately more than others (Table 14). TABLE 14.-Assessed Value and Taxes per Acre, and Acreage Distribution of all Rural Properties and of Rural Properties Sold for Taxes by Size of Property, Alabama, 1932. Acres per property (1) 3 9 10 - 19 20 - 49 50 - 99 100 - 174 175 - 259 260 - 499 500 - 999 1,000 and over All Assessed value per acre $58.79 26.73 14.65 11.05 9.42 8.14 8.70 8.26 6.72 $8.84 Taxes per acre $2.28 1.01 0.44 0.31 0.25 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.16 $0.23 Per cent of total acres Properties All properties(2) sold 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 5.8 5.9 10.1 10.0 14.1 15.8 9.5 8.4 14.6 14.0 12.7 12.9 32.7 32.3 100.00 100.0 Administration and the Works (1)Properties of less than 3 acres in size omitted. (2)Computed from data obtained by the Alabama Progress Administration. Relief Sales of rural property for taxes were rather closely associated with kind of soil. For the period 1928-1933, the extent to which a given soil area was sold for taxes is indicated by an index of importance of sales. This index varied widely (Table 15). Relatively much greater proportions of the areas composed of poor soils were sold for taxes than areas made up of good soils. There were, however, exceptions to this general rule as many of the Black Belt soils were considered to be poor, but a smaller percentage of the Black Belt area was sold for taxes than of any other in the State. The fact that a larger proportion of this area was not sold for taxes may be at least partially attributed to the plantation type of farm organization with its greater financial resources and to the fact that taxes per acre were relatively low on these soils. 30 TABLE 15.-Relation of Kind of Soil to Tax Sales of Rural Property, Alabama, 1928-1932. Per cent of State area 29.4 9.5 12.6 3.6 6.9 3.7 9.9 3.0 2.5 8.5 10.4 100.0 Per cent Index(1) of of importance acreage of sale by sold soils 28.2 96 12.9 136 12.1 96 11.1 308 5.1 74 2.5 68 15.2 154 1.3 43 1.1 44 4.7 55 5.8 56 100.0 -per cents Kind of soil Norfolk and Greenville sandy loams Susquehanna and minor areas of others Hartselle and Hanceville Norfolk and Greenville sands Cecil, Durham, Iredell, and Davidson Decatur, Dewey, and Colbert Clarksville, Montevallo, and Yolk Oktibbeha, Eutaw, Vaiden, and Lufkin Sumter, Houston, and Bell Good first bottoms and terraces Poorly drained low first bottoms State (1)The index is obtained by dividing per cents in column in column 1 and mltiplying the quotient by 100. 2 by corresponding Market for Tax-Sold Properties The buyers of delinquent property sold for taxes may be classed into two general groups-private and public (Table 16). In 1928 approximately 42 per cent and in 1933 about 73 per cent of all properties sold for taxes in Alabama reverted to the state. This condition not only varied widely from year to year but also from county to county. The prices paid for tax-sale land were frequently much below the prices involved in other types of transfers. Although tax-sale land is generally of materially lower quality than land transferred by other methods, the diffence is not sufficiently great to account for the wide variations in average prices. During the years 1920-1933 prices for tax transfers, mortgage foreclosure transfers, and voluntary transfers were approximately $0.31, $10, and $20 per acre reTABLE 16.-Number of Rural Real Estate Properties Sold for Taxes by Type of Buyers and the Per Cent Redeemed by the Original Owners, Alabama, 1928-1933. Type of buyers State Private buyers Buyers unknown All buyers Total Per Total Per Total Per Total Per number cent number cent number cent number cent reof proprereof propreof propof propYear erties deemed erties deemed erties deemed erties deemed 30 7,460 40 47 23 19,066 34 1928-33 11,559 1928 230 61 315 51 6 67 551 55 1929 565 38 651 48 5 0 1,221 43 1930 958 43 980 53 6 20 1,944 48 1931 2,013 49 1,786 49 5 67 3,804 49 1932 4,181 33 2,419 38 8 33 6,608 35 1933 3,612 10 1,309 15 17 12 4,938 11 31 spectively. The lower quality of the land and the fact that taxsale land is frequently disposed of in a saturated real estate market affect the prices received for such land in a minor way. Of far greater importance in determining the price of tax-sale land is the psychological condition associated with the sale. The fact that a piece of property has to go through a tax-sale procedure is frequently looked upon as an indication that something is wrong with the property. In addition the State's policy of securing enough to cover the taxes and penalties may tend to set the pace of bidding of private buyers on tax-sale lands. The possibility of not purchasing a clear tax title may be important in the bidding of buyers. The title to tax-forfeited land, whether belonging to the State or other owners, may be set aside by courts where county officials have failed to completely execute the many provisions of the statutes dealing with assessment, forfeiture, and certification of sale. The execution of the statutory provision is bound to be poor with the administration decentralized among 67 different counties. A clearing of the tax title in advance of the sale probably would result in making the property more salable, which in turn would benefit the State and the original owner, both of whom frequently suffer losses under present conditions. Clear tax titles would also reduce the amount of land sold to the State as the original owners would be less likely to permit land to become delinquent if they thought that it could not be redeemed subsequently. The redemption period is one of the means provided in the tax procedure to protect the original property owner from confiscation of his property. The possibility of the original owner's taking advantage of the redemption privilege may open ate as a negative influence on the bidd'ing of buyers. Approximately 34 per cent of all rural properties sold for taxes were redeemed by the original owners during the period 1928-1933 (Table 16). The tax-sale procedure fails to insure revenue during depressed times. For instance, in 1928, the State came into the final possession of the title to approximately 16 per cent of all properties sold and in 1933 into 66 per cent. The acreage sold in 1933 increased many times over that of 1928 (Table 17). The State came into final possession of nearly 461,500 acres of rural real estate in 1933, and over 1,236,000 acres during the six-year period of this study. The market for tax-delinquent property is weakest at a time when the State is in greatest need of a strong market. Sales under present laws cannot be delayed until business conditions improve. The problem of restoring State-owned property to the tax base by moving it into private ownership remains unsolved. ASSESSMENT OF FARM PROPERTY FOR TAXES Assessment data on farm property, both real estate and personal, were tabulated for purposes of determining the extent and 32 TABLE 17.-Acres of Rural Real Estate Sold for Taxes by Type of Buyers and the Per Cent Redeemed by the Original Owners Alabama, 1928-1933. State Type of buyers Private buyers Buyers unknown Per Per cent cent reTotal reTotal acres deemed acres deemed 44 70 57 64 58 38 17 8,708 3,109 136 335 1,247 1,613 2,268 41 97 0 31 14 9 3 All buyers Per cent reTotal acres deemed 2,930,598 67,640 164,606 373,869 528,700 1,086,526 709,257 36 72 45 46 56 36 13 Total acres Year 1928-33 1,811,258 25,826 1928 1929 96,955 1930 234,697 278,210 1931 1932 655,689 1933 519,781 Per cent redeemed 32 1,110,632 71 38,705 37 67,515 36 138,837 54 249,243 35 429,124 11 187,208 type of inequalities in the assessment of rural property. Although the counties selected were limited and may not closely represent the State-wide situation in assessment equalization, they do serve to illustrate the nature of the assessment problem. Legal Aspects The tax base is measured by the value placed upon property which for taxation purposes according to Constitutional mandate "shall be assessed . . . at 60 per cent of its fair and reasonable mar- ket value" (Act 1923, p. 152, Sec. 4). The Courts have defined fair and reasonable market value as the "price" which the property would bring at a fair voluntary sale (Code 1932, Sec. 302). The laws provide no procedure for the determination of a fair and reasonable market value. There are two fundamental aspects to assessment procedure: first, a complete list of property should be obtained from the taxpayer; and second, all property should be evaluated uniformly and comparably. Each property owner is required to make oath that the list includes all property in which he has any interest. All property for which exemption is sought must be included and, if personal property, must be turned in at full market value. If the taxpayer fails to list and evaluate his property the assessor must obtain the necessary information through the Probate Court and list the property. The assessor, together with the board of revenue and the State Tax Commission, is responsible for determining "a fair and reasonable market value" of all property. The State Tax Commission has final authority except as appeals may be taken to courts. Limited exemption practically frees the small farm operator from the payment of taxes on personal property. Since October 1937, homesteads to the extent of $2000 assessed value have been exempt from State taxes, provided the homestead does not exceed 160 acres in size. 33 Legislation in 1939 provided for the establishment of county boards of equalization each of which is composed of three members appointed by the governor from lists submitted by local officials. They have power to review, revise, and correct assessment values which the tax assessor has listed in order to secure the assessment at 60 per cent of a fair and reasonable market value. It may also penalize a taxpayer 10 per cent for failure to make returns. The county tax assessor who acts as secretary to the board may suggest changes, but has no independent power to change assessments. Equalization of assessments among counties must be made by the State Tax Commission through changes in individual assessments since it does not have power to make a blanket percentage change in assessments of all property in the county. Real Estate injustices in the distribution of taxes frequently result from property being overassessed or underassessed. These assessment inequalities apply both to real estate, and personal property and occur either through assessed valuations or property listing. Inequalities in assessment through failure to list real estate are unimportant. For instance, from 92 to 98 per cent of the total area of seven counties was listed on the assessment books for the period 1910-1935 (Table 18). Areas such as public parks, city platted areas, TABLE 18.-Per Cent of the Total Land Area Assessed for Taxes by Census Periods, Seven Counties, Alabama, 1910-1935(1). Total acres Year 1910 1920 1925 1930 1935 (1)Calhoun, Crenshaw, Census 2,148,480 2,542,720 1,725,440 2,887,680 2,135,680 Dale, DeKalb, Etowah, Assessed 2,100,411 2,425,322 1,590,678 2,747,808 1,995,551 Greene, Per cent of census area assessed 98 95 92 95 93 and Talladega Counties. roads, and rivers were not included in the assessment lists, but were present county areas. The use of plat books in of the State makes the escapment from ly difficult. the acreage obtained from in the Census estimates of all but one or two counties listing real estate extreme- Although provisions of the law require that all property subject to taxation be assessed at 60 per cent of its market value, all available data indicate that farm real estate assessments fell far short of the legal standard.* Assessment inequalities between urban and rural properties.*Census data indicate that from one-third to one-half of the value of farm real estate was assessed for taxes. A study of farms on which Land Bank Loans were made indicated assessed values were near one-third of appraised values. 34 Although adequate data for determining the extent and character of inequalities existing in the assessment of rural and urban property in Alabama were not available, the prevailing opinion of individuals closely associated with assessing and collecting taxes was that underassessment occured to a much greater extent in urban areas than in rural. The total assessed value of rural real estate has increased somewhat more rapidly than any other general group of property. In the decade from 1920 to 1930 the total assessed value of farm real estate increased to 212 per cent of the base year 1910 while urban real estate had advanced to 160 per cent and personal property to 164 per cent (Table 19). TABLE 19.-Indexes of Total Assessed Value of Real Estate, Personal, and Public Utility Property by Ten-Year Periods, Alabama, 1881-1930(1). 18811890 36 48 23 24 34 35 Indexes of total assessed value(2) 18911901191119211900 1910 1920 1930 49 76 137 187 56 79 151 212 41 73 122 160 45 76 107 153 46 79 118 164 48 76 129 178 Type of property Real estate (all) Rural real estate Urban real estate .......... Public utility Personal All property (1)Source: Original data obtained from Annual Reports and Records of State Auditor. (2)1910 equals 100 per cent. Assessment inequalities among periods of time.-When an assessed value that is acceptable to the property owner is placed on real estate, it is seldom changed. Although assessed value of rural properties rose during the World War inflationary period from slightly less than five to over nine dollars per acre, they have remained relatively constant at about the latter value since 1920 (Appendix Table 1). This rigidity in assessed values prevailed despite the fact that land values fluctuated widely during the same period. Figure 4 shows farm real estate values. The failure of farm real estate assessed values to fluctuate with actual values was unquestionably an important factor contributing to the acuteness of tax delinquency and tax-sale problems during the depression period. Assessment inequalities among counties.-Inequalities in the distribution of the State taxes may appear as a result of overasssesment or underassessment as among areas or counties of the State. That inequalities did exist is indicated by the fact that the appraised value for loaning purposes when compared with the value placed on the same farms for taxation purposes showed wide variations (Table 20). In only 14 counties were tax assessments equal to 60 per cent or more of the appraised values; in 17 counties the assessed values were less than 40 per cent and in 4 less than 30 per cent of appraised value. Another measurement of the inequalities among counties was 35 obtained by relating the tax per acre to the value of the farm real estate as reported in the Census. This ratio of property taxes to value of farm real estate ranged from 67 cents in Escambia County to $1.27 in Fayette County on $100 of farm real estate value (Table 20). This variation was due for the most part to lack of uniform assessment since differences in millage rates among the counties were slight. Assessment inequalities among individual property owners.Inequalities of assessments among farms are much more important to the individual farmer than inequalities among counties for two reasons: first, the variation among individual farms is much greater than among counties; and second, the county ad valorem tax rate is much greater than the State tax rate. In Houston County, for example, approximately 72 per cent of the rural properties which were sold between 1920 and 1933 were assessed at or less than 60 per cent TABLE 20.-Per Cent of the Value of Farm Real Estate Assessed for Taxes and Taxes Per $100 of Farm Real Estate Value, by Counties, Alabama. Number of farms 43 61 34 6 35 15 28 10 12 1 11 8 11 8 9 52 5 5 14 63 5 6 23 43 56 59 38 17 16 5 48 17 7 39 Per cent of value assessed (1) I 38 63 33 47 42 43 45 62 52 44 76 48 28 44 35 50 41 49 38 39 52 71 44 64 57 41 24 60 46 43 43 36 69 42 Taxes per $100 of farm value (2) $0.93 0.79 1.07 0.77 1.01 1.00 0.97 0.98 0.90 0.93 0.90 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.05 1.12 1.02 0.85 0.91 0.96 1.01 1.04 1.10 1.04 0.89 0.71 0.67 0.81 1.27 1.05 0.84 0.80 0.69 0.85 County Autauga Baldwin Barbour Bibb Blount Bullock Butler Calhoun Chambers Cherokee Chilton Choctaw Clarke Clay Cleburne Coffee Colbert Conecuh Coosa Covington Crenshaw Cullman Dale Dallas DeKalb Elmore Escambia Etowah Fayette Franklin Geneva Greene Hale Henry 1 See footnotes at end of table (Continued on next page) 36 TABLE 20.-Per Cent of the Value of Farm Real Estate Assessed for Taxes and Taxes Per $100 of Farm Real Estate Value, by Counties, Alabama. County nI~Ypn rp r Houston Jackson Jefferson Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence Lee Limestone Lowndes Macon Madison Marengo Marion Marshall Mobile Monroe Montgomery Morgan Perry 9 Pickens Pike Randolph Russell 'St. Clair Shelby Sumter Talladega Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker Washington Wilcox Winston r r STATNE School of Education, Alabama Number of r farms ~T 10 59 28 22 28 57 23 61 16 17 43 34 95 54 28 41 12 32 54 9 23 33 2 13 19 3 22 1 10 26 43 12 45 1785 Per cent of value r assessed (1) II 55 39 34 51 24 55 59 67 55 16 51 58 62 65 39 44 87 43 49 46 36 39 52 38 51 61 74 63 40 44 37 64 57 46 Taxes per $100 of farm value (2) 0.84 0.96 0.77 1.16 0.98 0.75 1.01 1.01 1.00 0.88 1.21 1.05 1.21 0.95 0.86 0.91 0.87 1.17 0.70 0.84 1.15 0.84 1.21 0.83 0.82 0.80 1.23 0.96 1.00 0.96 0.99 1.03 1.05 1.02 rr (1)The data on land appraisals and sale values of farm real estate are for the years 19291934 and were obtained from the Federal Land Bank of New Orleans by R. L. Johns, Polytschnic Institute. (2)Farm value obtained from U.S. Census, 1930. of the sale price reported on the records of the Judge of Probate (Table 21). Eight per cent were assessed at 20 per cent or less of the reported sale price, while 10 per cent were assessed at more than TABLE 21.-Distribution of Farms Sold for Taxes by Per Cent that Assessed Value is of Sale Price, Houston County Alabama, 1920-1933 (1). Per cent of farms Number Per cent assessed value is of of Without With All _ sale price farms improvements improvements farms Less than 21 144 11 4 8 21 - 40 742 40 37 38 41 - 60 498 24 28 26 61 - 80 208 9 12 11 81 -100 139 8 6 7 101 and over. 199 8 13 10 All 1930 100 100 100 (1) Sale price as given on the records of the Judge of Probate. 37 the reported sale price. A certain amount of inequality in assessments existed between improved and unimproved property; seventy-five per cent of the unimproved and 69 per cent of the improved properties were assessed at or less than the legal standard. Eleven per cent of the unimproved and only 4 per cent of improved properties were assessed at less than 20 per cent of the sale price. Thirteen per cent of the improved properties and 8 per cent of the unimproved properties were assessed at values in excess of the sale price. Apparently farms of all sizes were assessed at approximately 33 per cent of their value, even though their appraised values varied from $65 per acre for farms of less than 49 acres to $34 for farms of over 350 acres (Table 22). TABLE 22.-Relation of Size of Farm to Per Cent of Value of Farm Real Estate Assessed for Taxes, Five Counties, Alabama, 1917-1932(1). Value per acre Acres in farm Less than 50 50 - 99 100 150 200 250 300 149 199 249 299 349 Appraised $65 54 46 46 42 38 47 Assessed $20 18 15 15 14 12 15 Per cent 'of appraised value assessed 31 33 33 33 33 32 32 350 and over All (1)Includes Coffee, 34 $49 Dale, Geneva, Henry, and Houston 12 $16 Counties. 35 33 Inequalities appeared in the assessments when farm properties were measured in terms of the total value of the farm. The tendency existed to assess farms of low value heavier than farms of high value. Farms of less than 50 acres in size were assessed at 39 per cent when the total value was less than $2,100, and 26 per cent when the value was $2,700 or more (Table 23). Farms ranging from 150 to 199 acres in size were assessed at 40 per cent when the value was less than $5,400, and 30 per cent when the value was $8,300 or more. This same general tendency existed for farms of all other acreages. Inequalities among classes of property.-As a general rule the farms with relatively large investments in buildings had relatively small percentages of their total value assessed for taxes (Table 24). This was true regardless of the size of the farm. Farms of less than 50 acres in size with less than $500 in buildings were assessed at 37 per cent of the total farm value, as compared with 27 per cent when the buildings were valued at over $800. Farms of 150 to 200 acres with less than $1,000 in buildings were assessed at 39 per cent of the total farm value as compared with 29 per cent with farm buildings valued at more than $1,700. 38 TABLE 23.-Relation of Value of Farm Real Estate of Farms of Various Sizes to Per Cent of Value Assessed for Taxes, Five Counties, Alabama, 1917-1932(1). Value farm real estate Less than $2,100 2.100 - 2,699 2,700 and over Less than $3,100 3,100 - 4,499 4,500 and over Less than $4,200 4,200 - 6,299 6,300 and over Less than $5,400 5,400 - 8,299 8,300 and over Less than $8,400 8,400 - 14,999 15,000 and over (1)Coffee, Dale, Geneva, Henry, and Per cent of farm real estate value In farm In operator's Assessed for buildings dwelling taxes Less than 50 acres 22 18 39 26 20 33 29 22 26 50 - 99 acres 22 17 38 22 16 34 21 15 29 100 - 149 acres 21 21 21 19 18 24 20 18 18 Houston 14 14 12 150 - 199 acres 12 11 13 200 acres and over 12 9 7 Counties. 41 36 29 40 32 30 38 32 34 TABLE 24.-Relation of Value of Farm Buildings on Various Size Farms to Per Cent of Value Assessed for Taxes, Five Counties, Alabama, 1917-1931(1). Value of farm buildings Less than $500 500 - 799 Per cent of farm real estate value In farm In operator's Assessed for buildings dwelling taxes Less than 50 acres 12 9 37 26 20 33 800 and over Less than $600 600 - 1,099 1,100 and over Less than $800 800 - 1,399 1,400 and over Less than $1,000 1,000 - 1,699 1,700 and over Less than $1,400 1,400 - 2,699 2,700 and over 35 14 21 26 14 19 26 12 19 28 13 17 21 28 50 - 99 acres 10 14 18 100 - 149 27 37 35 30 41 33 31 9 13 16 150 - 199 acres 8 11 15 200 acres and over 7 9 9 39 34 29 36 32 33 (1)Coffee, Dale, Geneva, Henry, and Houston Counties. 39 The extent to which farm buildings were listed for assessments varied with the type of the farm building. In 1927 in four counties of Southeast Alabama approximately 94 per cent of the farm dwellings, 88 per cent of tenant houses, and 63 per cent of other types of farm buildings were listed for assessment (Table 25). In 1928 all percentages were lower. There was no relation between size of farm and percentage of total buildings reported for assessments. TABLE 25.-Per Cent of Buildings Reported for Assessment by Size of Farm and Type of Building, Four Counties, Alabama, 1927-1928(1). Per cent of buildings reported Dwellings Tenant houses Other buildings 1927 1928 1927 1928 1927 1928 88 100 90 94 and Pike Item Acres in farms: Less than 150 150- 249 250 and over Per cent of farms reporting buildings (1)Coffee, Dale, 82 79 75 79 Counties. 69 78 66 88 38 60 45 66 19 15 24 63 12 0 5 22 Geneva, No relationship existed between the distance a farm was located from market and the percentage of its value assessed for taxes. Farms located at relatively greater distances from a market had lower values, but were assessed proportionately the same as those nearer a market. Site values evidently were taken into account in the assessment of farm real estate. Assessment values do not take into full account the productivity of farm land that may have been capitalized into the value of farm real estate. For example, the appraised value of farm land yielding less than 100 pounds of lint cotton per acre was $37 per acre, and it was $57 on farms yielding 200 pounds or more but the assessed value per acre was not increased proportionately (Table 26). The value of farm real estate also varied widely with the topography of the land; farms which were level were valued at $55 per acre and were assessed at 31 per cent of this valuation, but farms that were located on rolling and hilly land had an average value of $24 per acre and were assessed at 38 per cent of the valuation (Table 27). TABLE 26.-Relation of the Yield of Lint Cotton to the Per Cent of the Appraised Value Assessed for Taxes, Five Counties, Alabama, 1917-1932(1). Per cent of Number Value per acre appraised Pounds of lint of value cotton per acre farms Appraised Assessed assessed Less than 10i 46 $37 $13 35 100- 199 297 42 14 33 200 and over 424 57 18 32 All 767 $50 $16 32 (1)Coffee, Dale, Geneva, Henry, and Houston Counties. 40 TABLE 27.-Relation of Topography of Farm Land to Per Cent of Appraised Value Assessed for Taxes, Five Counties, Alabama, 1917-1932(1). Per cent of Value per acre appraised Number value of farms Appraised Assessed assessed Topography Level Undulating Rolling Rolling and hilly 90 68 479 15 $55 61 45 24 $17 19 16 9 31 31 36 38 (1)Coffee, Dale, Geneva, Henry, and Houston Counties. Personal Property Personal property as a source of revenue provided an increasing tax base over the period from 1910 to 1930. The total assessed value of all personal property in percentage of the assessments in 1910 increased from 43 per cent in 1881-1890 to 174 per cent in 1921-1930 (Table 28). Information is not available to show how near this increase corresponds to the increases in the value of all taxable property, but in all probability, the increase in value of personal property over the past 40 years was far in excess of the values assessed for taxes. Some kinds of personal property have shown important increases in the total value assessed over the 40-year period. The assessed value of business equipment and industrial machinery increased from 11 per cent of the 1910 level in 1881-1890 to 2,956 per cent in 1921-1930. The greater part of this increase came after 1915 when the great industrial expansion centering around Birmingham began. Assessed values of stocks of wares and of household goods and personal articles, autos, and farm machinery also increased steadily but less rapidly than business and industrial equipment. The assessed value of stocks and bonds showed some increase for TABLE 28.-Index of Total Assessed Value of Personal Property by Kinds, Ten-Year Periods, Alabama, 1891-1930(1). 18811890 62 51 39 94 11 53 1.330 386 187 43 18911900 51 58 38 139 13 52 745 49 51 184 47 Indexes (1) 191119011910 1920 110 84 144 83 257 78 247 86 75 89 87 74 142 173 63 78 578 135 514 128 73 117 73 128 19211930 97 181 731 244 2,956 242 610 165 150 5 64 174 Kind of property ..... All livestock .............. Household and personal articles Wagons, buggies, auto, etc. Farming and mechanical tools Business equipment, machinery, and industrial Stocks of wares and goods ..... G ross sales ................ Stocks and bonds .14 Dividends, salaries, incomes Money employed and hoarded Penalties for non-assesessment All (1)1910 equals 100. 41 the 40 years. Money employed or hoarded, dividends, salaries, incomes, gross sales, and livestock showed no important tendencies to increase and in some instances declined. The variations and trends in the assessed value of various groups of personal property have resulted in part from changes in the assessment laws, which have from time to time exempted certain properties and added others to the tax rolls during the 40 years. Changes in business practices and methods in some instances made the tax laws obsolete from an administrative standpoint with a resulting escape of property from taxation. In still other instances, material increases occurred in the amount of property subject to taxation. During the period 1881-1890 to 1921-1930 the assessed value of various household articles increased, with furniture, libraries, musical instruments, and jewelry all showing a material upward trend, and paintings, guns and pistols, and clocks and watches undergoing no important change (Table 29). All kinds of livestock, except catTABLE 29.-Index of Total Assessed Value of Household and Personal Articles by Kinds, Ten-year Periods, Alabama, 1881-1930. 18811890 43 57 26 122 85 119 97 51 18911900 48 74 42 81 77 114 87 58 Index (1) 19011910 79 94 79 92 90 103 102 83 19111920 167 110 140 131 166 98 107 144 19211930 245 115 143 118 282 70 100 181 Kind of property Household furniture ------------------------Libraries Pianos and other musical instruments -----------------------------------Paintings ---. Jew elry .-----------------------Clocks and watches Guns and pistols All household and personal articles (1)1901-1905 equals 100. tle, showed important decreases in total assessed value after the World War period (Table 30). Adequate data for the State were not available in this study to determine the historical change occuring in the relative importance of real estate and personal property in the property tax base and as a source of revenue. However, data for Crenshaw, an agricultural county, were available and they TABLE 30.-Index of Total Value of Livestock by Kinds as Reported by Tax Assessors, Alabama, 1901-1927. Kind of livestock Horses ---------Mules Cattle ---------- Hogs Sheep Goats -122 All -1901 79 55 107 118 154 66 1910 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Index (1) 1920 104 146 443 5,421 195 255 166 1924 49 87 145 897 88 74 83 1927 35 79 249 1,212 93 78 80 ------------------------- (1)1910 equals 100. 42 represent the change that occured in many sections of the State (Table 31). TABLE 31.-Index of Assessments of Property by Type of Property, and Per Cent that Personal Property is of Total Assessed Property, by Periods, Crenshaw County, Alabama 1901-1935(1). Type of property Period 1901-1905 1906-1910 1911-1915 1916-1920 1921-1925 1926-1930 1931-1935 (1)1901-1905 equals 100. Real estate 100 148 210 266 328 342 308 Personal 100 146 169 179 197 178 102 Real estate and personal 100 147 196 237 284 286 238 Per cent that personal is of total assessed property 33.9 33.5 29.2 25.6 23.5 21.0 14.5 The total assessed value of real estate in Crenshaw County steadily increased until in 1926-1930 it amounted to 342 per cent of that of the five-year period of 1901-1905. Personal property reached its highest level in 1921-1925 when the total assessed value was 197 per cent of the base period. Prior to 1910, about one-third of the total assessed property in Crenshaw County was classified as personal property. After 1910, the proportion in personal property declined until it comprised less than 15 per cent of the total assessed value in 1931-1935. The trend in counties experiencing considerable industrial expansion may be quite different from Crenshaw County, for the increase of personal property in some of these counties was very great. In the fiscal year of 1932-1933, a little over 16 per cent of the total assessed value of property in the State of Alabama was classified as personal property. This compares very closely with the percentage of the total assessed value of property in Crenshaw County included in personal items during 1931-1935. The downward trend of the proportion of the assessments in personal property does not necessarily measure or prove the escape of personal property from taxation but does serve to indicate that real estate is yielding more and more of the property tax. The opinion is expressed that the assessment of livestock is less difficult than that of personal property and real estate because current market prices of livestock are available. Over a long period, livestock probably comes nearer to being assessed as the legal limit of 60 per cent of market value than any other kind of farm property; however, a study of year to year changes in market values and assessed values of livestock brings out wide variations from the 60 per cent standard. In years when the market value of livestock was rising the assessed values for tax purposes lagged behind considerably (Table 32). In 1919, the farm value of horses averaged $128 per head for the State of Alabama but only 47 per cent of this value was as- 43 sessed for tax purposes. Two years later, the farm value had declined to $91 per head with 71 per cent of the value assessed. In 1931 the farm value stood at the low level of $51 per head with 70 per cent of the value assessed. By 1935 farm values had reached $78 per head and were assessed at only 33 per cent (Appendix Table 11). TABLE 32.-Per Cent of Market Value of Horses and Cattle Assessed During Years of Rising and of Declining Prices, Etowah, DeKalb, and Marshall Counties, Alabama, 1910-1936. Per cent of total number Horses Cattle Years of Years of Years of Years of declining rising declining rising prices (4) prices (2) prices (3) prices (1) 12 2 9 5 15 31 24 47 25 15 23 25 11 7 35 8 13 16 8 7 15 4 4 3 0 2 8 1 18 1 0 6 100 100 109 100 Per cent of market value assessed Less than 21 21 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81 - 100 101 - 120 121 - 140 141 and over All (2) (3) (4) (1) 1918, 1919, 1920, 1934, 1935. 1921, 1922, 1925, 1926, 1927, 1931, 1932. 1912, 1913, 1914, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930. 1911, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934. A similar inverse relationship of farm value per head and per cent assessed for taxes existed in the case of cattle, mules, and hogs. The use of farm value of livestock as of January 1 related to assessed values of the previous October may have created some error in the results, but the slight error is not considered sufficient to prevent the results from indicating the existence of an important lag in the adjustment of assessed values to changes in sale values. The practices of assessing livestock are such that the burden of property taxes falls heaviest when market values are least able to support it and vice versa. In this respect, the experience in assessing livestock is no different from what has occurred in assessing real estate. During years of rising prices 79 per cent of the horses were assessed at 60 per cent or less of their market value as compared with 54 per cent during years of declining prices (Table 32). The same conditions prevailed with cattle for in years of rising prices 68 per cent of all cattle were assessed at 60 per cent or less of market value and in years of falling prices only 32 per cent were assessed at 60 per cent or less of market value. The assessment laws provide for the exemption from taxation of certain numbers of the different kinds of farm livestock. Livestock exempted from taxation must be assessed at 100 per cent of the market value, because of the limitations on the total value 44 of property for which exemptions may be secured. In the period prior to and during the World War, exempted cattle were assessed at nearly the full market value (Appendix Table 11). After the World War, a general decline occurred in the per cent of the market value assessed on exempted cattle which lasted until the depression of 1930. During this period exempted cattle were assessed at practically the same value as cattle subject to taxation. The undervaluation of cattle, which reached its lowest level around 1926 to 1928, permitted more personal property to escape taxation. In the years of the recent depression, however, the assessed value of exempted cattle exceeded that of the market value. This was the result of a more rapid decline in market values than in the assessed valuations. The county tax assessor has the responsibility of administering assessment laws in such a way as to establish equality of obligations of taxpayers to the government. He has no authority, however, to place values on property for assessment purposes. He may and frequently does aid the taxpayer in estimating the value of items. Frequently values from the previous years tax rolls are suggested. These may not reflect changed market values. There is also the tendency for the assessor to suggest and the taxpayer to report rounded values. Thus minor items are valued in even dollars and more valuable items in figures divisable by five. These practices coupled with the fact that the assessor seldom sees any of the property being assessed can result in equitability in only a very general way. Wide differences existed in the relation of assessed valuations to the market values of mules and cattle assessed by different assessors (Table 33). In the case of some assessors, there was a strong tendency to underassess mules and cattle (Assessor No. 1), while other assessors tended to overassess livestock (Assessor No. 2). In TABLE 33.-Per Cent of Market Value of Mules and Cattle, Assessed by Selected County Assessors, Alabama. Per cent of total number Cattle -Mules Per cent Assessor Assessor market value of assessed Less than 21 21 - 40 41 - 60 61 - 80 81- 100 101 - 120 1 0 13 43 23 16 5 2 0 6 34 40 20 0 3 1 12 39 39 6 1 1 3 39 37 9 6 3 2 0 0 25 0 0 17 3 20 32 4 12 20 8 121- 140 0 0 100 0 0 100 2 0 100 0 3 100 16 42 100 4 0 100 141 and over All some instances the assessed value on the average approximated rather closely the market value of the property (Assessor No. 3). In the case of some assessors, the assessed valuations covered not only 45 a wide range but sometimes showed no particular tendency to center around 60 per cent or any other percentage of the market value. The tendency has been for the assessments of certain types of personal property to become less complete over a period of time. Data are available to portray this trend in the case of livestock (Table 34). As late as 1925, nearly one-half of all cattle were listed for assessment while in 1930 and 1935 the listings declined to 36 and 25 per cent respectively. The percentage of hogs and sheep listed for assessment since 1900 has declined in general similarly to that of cattle. The assessment of mules and horses was more complete than that of any other form of livestock. This more complete listing of horses and mules may be due to the fact that a rather definite ratio exists between size of farm and number of work stock. TABLE 34.-Per Cent of Livestock Listed in the United States Census Reported for Assessment, Six Counties, Alabama, 1900-1935(1). Per cent Year 1900 1910 1920 1925 1930 1935 1900-1935 (1)Calhoun, Dale, DeKalb, Cattle 50 54 49 47 36 25 44 studs, jacks, and jennets. Horses 75 68 68 80 58 26 62 Mules (2) 82 74 70 74 60 54 67 Counties. Hogs 59 38 49 45 35 29 42 Sheep and goats 59 49 64 50 26 14 44 Etowah, Greene, and Talladega (2)Includes The escape of personal property from taxation has not gone on at a uniform rate in all counties (Table 35). In Talladega County the percentage of all cattle listed declined steadily from 70 in 1910 to 20 in 1935. In DeKalb County no decline was noted. Listing of property has been more complete in some counties than in others. For example, the listing of cattle in Greene County has been little more than half as complete as that in Dale County. These variations appearing among counties in the listing of personal property are imTABLE 35.-Per Cent of Cattle Listed in the Census That Were Reported for Assessment, Five Counties, Alabama, 1900-1935. Calhoun - Year 1900 1910 Dale 60 60 DeKalb 52 55 Greene 38 30 Talladega - 70 1920 1925 56 65 72 - 20 54 48 33 50 36 1930 1935 41 29 41 11 50 41 23 - 30 20 portant insofar as they may cause the shifting of the burden of taxes for financing the State Government and thus create inequalities among political units. 46 Wide variations existed in the listing and assessing of personal property among farm owners and tenants. The fact that land owners cannot easily avoid appearing before the assessor to list their real estate means that they also cannot easily avoid listing some personal property. It is much easier for tenants to escape making any report of property for assessment. Adequate data for the State were not available to determine how much property of tenants escaped assessment. Information available for parts of DeKalb and Marshall Counties serves to indicate that a very small part of the property owned by tenants is assessed for taxes. The information applies to white tenant farmers, who, in all probablity, owned more than the average amount of property per tenant. In 1927 less than 30 per cent of these tenants reported property for assessment. Six years later the number had declined to 12 per cent (Table 36). TABLE 36.-Per Cent of All Tenants Reporting Personal Property for Assessment, Per Cent of Value of Property Assessed for those Reporting, and Per Cent of Value of Property of all Tenants Reported for Assessment, DeKalb and Marshall Counties, Alabama, 1927-1932 (1). Tenants reporting property for assessment 29 19 21 17 12 Year 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 Per cent Value assessed of those reporting 38 46 56 56 67 Value of property of all tenants reported for assessment 13 10 12 10 11 1932 All 12 18 62 51 8 11 (1)Value of household goods, feed and supplies not included. Only 11 per cent of the total farm value of the personal property owned by tenants was assessed for taxes during the period 1927-1932. In the case of work stock, cattle, or any other type of property for which data were available, the assessments in number and value were about as complete for tenants who reported for assessment as for owners who filed lists. However, these data are for only a part of DeKalb and Marshall Counties, which is not typical of the State in many ways. Undoubtedly in some areas of the State wide differences existed in the completeness of the listing and in the percentage of market value assessed. 47 SUMMARY The tax problems of farmers were associated very largely with the general property tax during the period 1848-1935. This tax was by far the most important contribution toward financing local and state governments. The general trend of rural property taxes for the period studied was upward, varying from approximately one-half cent per acre in 1849 to twenty-one cents in 1929. Most of the increase occurred during the years of 1914-1921. The increased demand for governmental services has been the principal factor responsible for the upward trend in property taxes. These services include better school systems, improved roads, more care for unemployed and other dependents, and more regulatory services. Property taxes became most burdensome about 1932 when taxes were twice as high, farm real estate values were about the same, and prices of farm products were a little more than one-half the 1910-1914 level. Consequently, an increasing share of farm cash receipts was required for the payment of taxes. The heavy burden of property taxes on cash incomes was the leading factor contributing to tax delinquency on approximately 60,000 rural properties in 1932. These properties included more than one-third of the land in the State. The tax-delinquent land was predominantly farm land, including both poor and relatively productive units. A certain amount of tax delinquency is of a long-time or chronic nature due to repeated failures of a piece of land to yield sufficient revenue to meet taxes or to the indifference of property owners toward tax obligations. The amount of rural property sold for taxes in Alabama increased from 570 pieces involving 71,470 acres in 1928 to about 6,700 properties involving 1,126,310 acres in 1932. A substantial decline has occurred in tax sales since 1932. The relative amounts of rural property sold for taxes varied widely throughout the State. Many factors were associated with tax sales, the relative importance of each varying among the different areas of the State. Some of these factors were: (1) decline of incomes during the depression years; (2) removal of timber leaving the land with less earning capacity; (3) utilization of submarginal land for agricultural purposes under war-stimulated price levels; (4) removal of the speculative element from real estate values; and (5) abandonment of farms that have become submarginal because of declining fertility and changing economic conditions. The prices for tax-sale lands in relation to the quality of the lands are frequently much below the prices of farm lands involved 48 in other types of transfers. This condition is a result of the following facts: (1) the tax-delinquent land is often disposed of on a saturated real estate market; (2) the land sold by tax-sale procedure is frequently looked upon as an uneconomical unit; (3) the practice of the State in advertising taxes and costs as its minimum bid tends to set the pace of the bidding of private buyers; and (4) the purchaser must wait three years before securing title to the property and even then may have the title set aside by court decision. The assessment of farm real estate amounted to only about onethird of the market value in the past two decades, falling far short of the 60 per cent required by law. Inequalities in the distribution of property taxes appeared among both individual properties and counties as a result of overassessment and underassessment of farm real estate. Improved properties were assessed at a higher proportion of the market value than unimproved properties, farms of low total value heavier than farms of the same size with higher values, farms with a large percentage of the value in buildings at less than farms with a small percentage in buildings, and farm lands of high fertility at less than those of low. Inequalities in the assessment of personal property arise as a result of incomplete listings, overassessment, and underassessment. The proportion of the assessed value of all farm property in personal property has tended downward since 1900. The completeness of listing and correctness of assessing personal property varied widely among individual farmers. Only a small percentage of the tenants listed any property for assessment. The assessed values of livestock changed slowly to conform to current market prices. 0000 49 APPENDIX APPENDIX TABLE 1.-Assessed Valuation, Millage Rates, and Taxes per Acre on Rural Real Estate, Alabama, 1848-1935(1) Index Year 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 Average per acre, Assessed Millage Taxes rates valuation Dollars Mills Cents 2.0 0.8 4.03 2.0 2.97 0.6 2.5 1.1 4.43 5.10 2.0 1.0 1.1 3.07 3.5 2.8 3.84 0.9 3.0 1.3 4.19 3.5 1.3 3.82 4.18 2.8 2.7 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.5 3.5 4.8 6.4 0.9 1.3 1.4 2.6 1.0 1.9 1.1 1.7 2.1 3.0 4.1 2.5 3.0 4.0 4.7 4.5 4.6 4.0 (1913= Millage 100) Taxes(2) i Assessed valuation 87 64 95 110 83 90 82 90 104 77 102 106 159 66 86 94 86 81 87 92 78 85 74 72 61 65 71 46 54 55 63 56 62 74 68 51 51 66 66 64 64 63 61 64 62 63 63 63 63 (Coninue rates .14 14 18 14 12 9 17 15 14 20 20 14 20 21 25 20 21 25 20 19 29 36 14 18 25 34 46 61 85 48 69 91 80 103 104 104 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1866 4.82 3.58 4.73 4.92 7.41 3.05 4.00 4.38 4.00 39 15 29 17 26 32 45 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 8.6 11.9 6.7 9.6 12.7 11.2 14.4 14.6 14.5 13.9 14.1 16.7 14.8 15.8 11.8 15.4 14.0 12.5 12.4 11.9 9.6 8.7 9.0 8.9 10.1 10.1 10.9 10.3 11.2 11.9 13.3 13.8 13.4 3.76 4.05 4.28 3.65 3.97 3.43 62 38 45 61 71 68 70 61 3.35 2.83 3.04 1877 1878 1879 1880 1881 1882 3.9 4.2 3.0 99 101 119 106 113 84 110 100 89 89 85 69 62 64 64 72 72 78 74 59 64 45 3.32 2.12 2.51 2.58 2.93 2.60 2.89 3.42 3.14 2.39 2.36 1883 1884 1885 1886 1887 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.4 53 55 50 52 58 58 55 56 32 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.7 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.06 3.08 2.98 2.97 2.94 36 36 35 39 41 42 44 44 47 52 on ext 1895 1896 1897 1898 2.85 2.96 2.89 2.91 80 85 1899 1900 1901 1(otne 2.93 2.93 2.95 3.6 1 3.7 95 99 96 on ext page) age 55 56 50 APPENDIX TABLE 1.-Assessed Valuation, Millage Rates, and Taxes per Acre on Rural Real Estate, Alabama, 1848-1935(1) Year Average per acre Assessed Millage Taxes valuation rates Index (1913 Assessed Millage valuation rates 100) Taxes(2) 58 56 58 64 70 73 79 80 86 88 94 100 105 111 133 153 185 203 262 274 261 277 270288 285 291 292 315 288 283 238 253 226 226 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 (1) Dollars 3.05 3.04 3.13 3.32 3.56 3.72 3.97 4.03 4.14 4.18 4.42 4.65 4.81 5.21 6.24 6.20 6.77 6.98 9.31 9.98 9.44 9.67 9.28 9.50 9.42 9.65 9.69 9.76 9.69 9.36 7.69 6.98 7.42 7.42 Mills 13.4 12.7 12.7 13.4 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.4 13.8 13.6 13.8 14.0 14.5 14.2 14.1 15.3 17.1 1.6.9 17.6 18.1 18.2 18.5 18.7 19.9 19.9 20.0 20.2 20.6 20.7 20.7 20.1 19.8 20.4 20.4 Cents 3.8 3.7 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.8 5.2 5.3 5.7 5.8 6.2 6.6 6.9 7.3 8.8 10.1 12.2 13.4 17.3 18.1 17.2 18.3 17.8 19.0 18.8 19.2 19.3 20.8 19.0 18.7 15.7 16.7 14.9 14.9 66 65 67 71 77 80 85 87 89 90 95 100 103 112 134 133 146 150 200 215 203 208 200 204 203 208 208 210 208 201 165 150 160 160 96 91 91 96 96 96 96 96 99 97 99 100 104 101 101 109 122 121 126 129 130 132 134 142 142 143 144 147 148 148 144 141 146 146 (2) Data from records in tax books. Very few records were found of taxes assessed before 1870. Taxes on all "rural" real estate have tended to be lower than "farm" real estate because of the lower average quality and value of the former. See footnote one, page 3. 51 APPENDIX TABLE 2-Index of Farm East South Central States 57 57 57 57 57 57 57 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 71 71 79 79 79 86 86 93 93 East South Central States, and United States, Real Estate Taxes per Acre, Alabama 1890-1935(1). East South Central States 100 107 107 121 136 157 186 257 271 279 293 300 293 300 307 314 321 321 300 271 264 243 250 - Year 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 1899 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 (1) i Alabama 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 50 50 50 60 60 60 60 60 60 70 70 80 80 80 90 90 i United States i i Year 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1 1/ Alabama 100 100 110 120 130 140 150 190 190 200 200 200 210 230 230 230 250 250 250 230 210 210 210 United States 100 1 54 54 54 54 54 58 54 54 54 54 54 54 58 62 62 62 62 67 71 79 79 88 88 100 108 117 129 138 171 212 225 225 229 229 233 233 238 242 242 238 217 188 162 154 154 Yearbook uf Agriculture 1935, Agricultural Statistics rounded figures (1913 equals 100 per cent). ~ 1 1 1\I 1938, U.S.D.A. Index computed from 52 APPENDIX TABLE 3.-Rural Real Estate Taxes per Acre by Soil Regions, 1892-1933 (1). Soil Regions _ __ _ _ _________Alabama, Year Lower Coastal Plain Cents 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 18'99 1900 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 . 1~11 (1) 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.5 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.5 5.7 .5.7 5.9 6.3 6.7 8.0 9.4 10.6 11.8 12.6 13.1 13.1 13.3 13.4 13.7 Black Belt and Upper Coastal Plain Cents 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.7 Piedmont Plateau Cents 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.1 5.8 6.3 7.3 8.3 10.0 11.4 13.3 14.7 16.4 17.2 18.2 19.4 20.7 21.8 22.8 23.7 23.8 23.9 22.4 20.8 18.7 18.3 16.5 15.9 IVV 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.9 5.1 5.5 5.9 Appalachian Mountains Cents 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.0 3.1 3.4 3.5 3.7 Limestone Valleys Cents 3.8 3.9 4.1 4.3 4.6 4.0 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 6.0 6.3 6.8 7.2 7.6 8.0 8.6 9.6 11.0 12.6 14.4 16.1 17.3 18.1 19.0 19.6 20.1 20.5 21.0 21.2 21.6 21.6 21.4 21.7 21.7 21.4 State Cents 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 5.3 5.7 5.9 6.2 3.9 4.4 4.9 5.6 6.1 6.7 7.3 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.5 13.6 15.8 17.9 21.6 24.8 27.0 28.7 30.5 30.5 30.4 30.9 31.3 33.1 6.6 6.9 7.7 9.7 11.5 12.8 13.9 14.7 14.7 14.6 14.9 15.0 15.7 15.5 15.2 14.3 14.2 13.2 12.6 il.rl 13.8 14.3 14.9 14.8 15.1 15.3 3.1 33.9 34.5 32.5 29.5 24.6 20.7 I 1 1 I I 7.2 8.0 9.1 10.1 12.1 13.9 15.2 16.1 16.7 18.1 18.2 18.5 18.8 19.4 19.4 19.4 18.7 18.2 17.0 16.2 An unweighted five-year moving average was used to remove chance variations that might have occurred in some years hecause of the small sample used. 53 APPENDIX TABLE 4.-Indexes of Farm Real Estate Values and Taxes per Acre, Prices Received for Farm Products Sold, Prices Paid for Commodities Purchased, and Purchasing Power of Farm Products, Alabama, 1910-1935. Farm real estate(1) Year 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 (1) (2) (3) Value per acre(2) (6) (6) 98 98 103 98 98 103 128 143 177 147 135 143 144 154 154 145 145 143 143 129 102 88 99 110 Taxes per acre(3) 83 93 93 103 103 114 124 134 145 155 197 197 207 207 207 217 238 238 238 259 259 259 238 217 217 217 Prices received for farm products sold (4) 111 102 91 101 96 85 116 175 230 230 244 109 144 189 190 166 131 132 150 146 108 72 53 65 93 99 Prices paid for commodities purchased(S) 102 95 100 104 97 101 138 182 188 199 241 167 168 171 162 164 161 152 154 152 146 126 108 108 122 125 Purchasing power of farm products 109 107 91 97 98 84 83 96 123 115 100 65 86 111 118 101 81 87 98 96 74 57 49 60 76 79 (4) (5) (6) 1912-14 equals 100. Circular No. 417, October 1936 "The Farm Real Estate Situation, 1935-36," Computed from data in Yearbook of Agriculture, 1935, and Agricultural Statistics, 1938, U. S.D.A. Unpublished data, Department of Agricultural Economics, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, Auburn, Alabama (1910-14 equals 100). Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U.S.D.A. (1910-14 equals 100). No data available. U.S.D.A. 54 APPENDIX TABLE 5.-Number of Rural Real Estate Properties Tax-Delinquent by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1932. THE STATE Autauga Baldwin Barbour Bibb Blount(1) Bullock Butler Calhoun Chambers Cherokee (2) Chilton Choctaw (1) Clarke Clay Cleburne Coffee Colbert Conecuh (1) Coosa(1) Covington Crenshaw Cullman Dale (1) (3) Dallas DeKalb Elmore (1) Escambia Etowah Fayette Franklin Geneva Greene Hale Henry Houston Jackson (1) Jefferson Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence Lee Limestone Lowndes Macon Madison (1) Marengo (1) Marion Marshall (1) Mobile Monroe Montgomery Morgan Perry Pickens (1) Pike Randolph Russell(1) Se fotoesaten f abe 1928 27,166 35 385 570 234 612 319 500 238 317 1 264 1,047 323 228 217 490 1,783 278 726 388 286 900 241 376 828 328 200 212 210 864 8 92 28 306 1,090 1,177 259 424 281 80 514 178 221 1,244 1,143 88 701 123 185 263 483 966 439 21 - 1929 34,648 337 422 815 255 752 366 592 285 404 4 256 1,153 470 336 260 571 518 1,863 357 731 631 485 1,098 357 506 395 576 314 277 244 1,080 30 168 76 440 1,361 1,169 305 438 353 69 664 242 317 1,478 1,197 145 942 743 193 259 473 533 863 569 49 531 1930 42,460 284 445 738 333 980 395 710 353 457 31 424 1,262 691 487 418 601 565 1,843 481 536 743 679 1,155 426 809 1,160 674 561 375 569 1,040 24 204 58 647 1,672 1,399 335 733 575 161 765 283 398 1,661 1,450 344 1,029 883 234 305 905 564 1,037 565 147 746 (cnine 1931 52,977 131 881 905 535 1,079 458 949 494 578 68 687 1,414 922 659 590 870 763 2,000 552 1,225 954 892 1,264 496 1,231 1,217 1,065 617 525 59 1,255 65 294 164 1,007 1,943 2,311 575 871 747 266 812 284 381 1,442 1,461 461 1,418 1,249 541 460 1,030 745 1,175 686 134 742 n et 1932 59,484 101 936 962 487 1,424 582 1,064 595 1,006 444 801 1,427 1,521 712 669 980 659 1,995 580 1,452 1,001 1,156 1,399 524 1,240 1,191 853 832 701 863 1,250 122 104 162 1,033 1,839 2,381 942 879 562 356 863 412 554 1,460 1,446 530 1,861 1,640 340 541 1,127 782 1,306 809 75 732 ae 55 APPENDIX TABLE 5.-Number of Rural Real Estate Properties Tax-Delinquent by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1932. THE STATE St. Clair Shelby Sumter Talladega(1) Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker Washington Wilcox(1) Winston (1) (2) (3) 1928 33 379 516 562 34 435 375 168 802 148 1929 37 473 553 576 149 437 465 115 871 355 1930 117 555 641 705 437 623 602 180 953 280 1931 144 640 729 795 636 805 1,008 240 938 443 1932 145 736 769 731 787 1,081 1,291 233 1,004 442 Delinquencies were calculated from January 1. Tax receipts prior to 1932 destroyed. Beat 12 not included. APPENDIX TABLE 6.-Acres of Rural Real Estate Tax Delinquent by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1932. THE STATE Autauga Baldwin Barbour Bibb Blount (1) Bullock Butler Calhoun Chambers Cherokee(2) Chilton Choctaw (1) Clarke Clay Cleburne Coffee Colbert Conecuh (1) Coosa (1) Covington Crenshaw Cullman Dale(1) (3) Dallas DeKaib Elmore (1) Escambia Etowah Fayette Franklin Geneva (1) Greene Hale Henry Houston Jackson (1) Jefferson See footnotes at end of table. 1928 5,334,857 2,258 69,693 87,640 42,201 69,565 110,326 85,949 42,898 71,392 40 36,072 220,458 65,740 32,697 39,483 --- 1929 6,826,945 81,713 93,707 109,008 70,186 73,181 116,795 98,456 47,288 91,106 1,000 35,711 245,123 85,533 47,578 46,188 128,884 84,309 99,935 342,616 330,790 59,510 54,272 123,9~36 123,722 60,909 104,804 76,055 85,178 198,168 165,994 73,012 92,758 74,587 55,022 129,333 148,445 6~7,90O7 91,741 50,764 29,431 38,908 32,410 33,784 40,389 193,039 147,135 10,624 3,865 15,231 6,559 14,101 6,123 68,065 43,159 282,476 222,842 75,195 85,567 I ---- 1 1930 8,142,388 61,419 77,097 133,067 88,771 114,297 153,016 128,584 59,712 90,858 3,451 62,316 322,254 103,763 68,963 78,792 134,944 102,598 274,852 85,617 105,892 116,211 54,570 202,947 141,101 100,704 177,879 130,697 83,584 57,410 83,838 192,685 19,710 22,168 16,895 106,218 353,358 89,845 r 1931 9,793,577 33,006 180,838 239,674 149,564 101,929 149,727 167,031 79,161 110,930 8,361 89,735 323,358 166,118 92,570 104,753 171,359 147,195 3 10,570 79,837 201,057 157,172 36,707 220,872 154,804 138,070 190,592 188,213 85,684 82,086 7,627 197,810 31,829 44,768 36,503 155,287 388,408 152,587 i 1932 11,161,454 24,440 137,709 245,411 139,774 190,357 208,555 168,074 93.365 235,324 126,574 115,762 361,844 301,088 108,089 114,171 188,388 125,591 346,277 122,289 226,621 170,131 67,725 247,205 228,521 139,064 171,746 170,290 107,611 102,029 144,114 188,073 59,200 14,711 37,686 148,870 365,496 152,739 (continued on next page) 56 APPENDIX TABLE 6.-Acres of Rural Real Estate Tax Delinquent by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1932. 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence Lee Limestone Lowndes Macon Madison (1) Marengo(1) Marion Marshall(1) Mobile Monroe Montgomery Morgan Perry Pickens (1) Pike Randolph Russell(1) St. Clair Shelby Sumter Talladega (1) Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker Washington Wilcox (1) Winston (1) (2) (3) 32,150 64,344 44,624 12,990 70,795 80,002 75,957 219,042 309,896 12,562 84,226 19,638 74,448 50,301 146,025 259,684 102,537 1,947 5,700 88,243 163,976 99,983 5,910 119,455 47,159 36,279 255,545 21.647 35,252 71,590 63,102 15,627 95,720 112,673 110,176 252,392 345,196 52.618 120,487 88,174 28,227 87,804 66,638 151,626 220,511 129,640 5,757 222,027 6,042 103,222 201,971 103,463 35,038 119,847 69,103 13.771 283,064 55,440 50,266 93,622 99,169 34,380 126,466 129,430 142,843 276,085 401,514 52,677 131,736 96,141 73,004 121,501 125,710 160,593 261,132 133,035 20,976 264,681 23,135 110,028 200,641 125,094 80 863 140,555 82,338 52,178 291,191 41.311 49,991 120,114 109,902 62,343 123,964 132,257 138,024 142,279 387,935 70,672 171,779 166,807 119,871 192,834 129,416 191,292 291,761 140,881 19,721 258,612 16,000 147,188 283,256 128,999 153.094 217,340 119,247 185,846 285,967 59.393 170,568 119,244 96,918 81,697 138,717 200,805 214,120 198,109 422,047 89,274 214,836 205,224 78,317 176,741 137,799 219,170 339,689 162,509 7,855 247,121 25,202 185,536 232,587 118,605 173,962 241,246 147,732 61,818 298,132 61,0,60 Delinquences were calculated from January first. Tax receipts prior to 1932 destroyed. Beat 12 not included. 57 APPENDIX TABLE 7.-Delinquent Taxes on Rural Real Estate by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1932. THE STATE Autauga Baldwin Barbour Bibb Blount(1) Bullock Butler Calhoun Chambers Cherokee(2) Chilton Choctaw(1) Clarke Clay Cleburne Coffee Colbert Conecuh(1) Coosa (1) Covington Crenshaw Cullman Dale(1) (3) Dallas DeKalb Elmore (1) Escambia Etowah Fayette Franklin Geneva (1) Greene Hale Henry Houston Jackson(1) Jefferson Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence Lee Limestone Lowndes Macon Madison(1) Marengo(1) Marion Marshall(1) Mobile Monroe Montgomery Morgan Perry Pickens(1) Pike Randolph Russell(1) See footnotes end of table 1928 $1,026,359 411 15,191 23,956 4,530 16,579 15,392 13,800 9,445 12,590 8 6,168 26,746 5,953 4,550 4,275 27,711 62,576 9,713 24,458 9,049 10,093 36,762 18,817 11,758 26,947 7,081 5,598 4,148 5,572 34,718 670 891 1,108 11,243 37,137 59,133 5,897 18,372 10,468 2,470 26,115 10,966 11,900 77,164 52,528 1,694 21,334 2,991 18,171 15,440 20,251 30,026 20,199 325 - 1929 $1,342.593 15,447 14,979 30,628 37,267 20,208 16,262 15,785 11,958 16,106 96 6,162 30,833 8,701 6,410 4,465 28,458 29,031 44,373 10,953 23,008 14,765 14,924 44,422 25,975 15,408 30,515 11 272 11,149 5,175 5,241 43,614 1,746 2,022 2,365 17,764 48,060 58,498 7,236 20,763 14,630 2,380 37,023 16,714 17,453 87,032 57,787 3,757 31,712 32,758 4,015 18,970 22,540 20,614 25,864 25,090 1,062 35.217 1930 $1.842,106 12,659 18,080 27,117 39,360 25,376 30,839 40,260 14,087 14,875 1,042 10,917 43,273 11,309 8.995 18 338 30.012 29 588 35 781 12,538 19,007 17.490 18,981 45,716 32,749 21,734 34,945 16,072 18.863 7,021 13,465 49,929 3,183 3,273 2,377 27,417 100,461 58,620 7,79' 25,975 22,102 5,725 45,135 18 374 22,551 95,790 63.207 6,638 35,367 34,833 8,818 26,458 40.612 21,734 27,433 26,971 4.022 44.499 1931 $2,010,602 6.284 35,975 29,867 14,288 26,489 20,796 26,450 18,454 18,201 2,068 15.526 138,627 16,124 12,306 11.447 35,990 37,476 40,140 15,856 66,332 24,082 24,830 48,149 38,838 33,082 34,816 23.639 18.828 10,223 976 46,964 5,251 6,353 6,071 40,308 65,179 107,741 12,295 32,838 24,927 7,804 33.952 19,153 22.279 66,601 66.134 8,144 47,067 59,542 19,872 41,742 91,603 25,260 30,849 25,951 2,882 43.649 (continued 1932 $1.999,615 3,347 26,511 31,178 10,640 29,202 26,971 49,079 19,504 31,066 14,721 19,025 89,101 28,096 12,086 12,674 40,462 26,421 103,822 11,023 35,486 24,014 29,461 37,854 37,303 33,424 28,024 24,095 26,097 13,934 20,886 39,734 7,354 1,873 4,590 38,822 56,019 103,662 19,011 28,347 21,871 11,465 38,281 26,158 31,992 59,903 53,962 8,757 55,393 67,478 10,798 39,612 41,356 28,698 52,423 32,377 1,093 41,734 on next page) 58 APPENDIX TABLE 7.-Delinquent Taxes on Rural Real Estate by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1932. St. Clair Shelby Sumter Talladega(1) Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker Washington Wilcox(1) Winston (1) (2) (3) 1928 775 11,337 20,471 23,357 889 18,443 7,999 3,527 28,248 2.225 1929 956 13,435 25,448 22,817 5105 19,153 10,856 1,516 28,260 8,385 1930 2,817 132,291 25,750 36,923 12,055 23,216 65,555 5,395 34,409 3,940 1931 2,700 18,444 27,587 25,922 20,915 32,375 17,698 16,500 1932 2,556 20,869 26,298 22,273 22,972 36,576 22,624 7,394 35,914 5.972 33,779 6.005 Calculated delinquencies from January first. Tax receipts prior to 1932z destroyed. Beat 12 not included. APPENDIX TABLE 8.-Rural Real Estate Properties Sold for Taxes by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1933. "' I 1933 1932 1930 1931 1929 1928 6,725 1,957 4,880 3,815 1,089 570 THE STATE 71 66 45 40 20 1 Autauga Baldwin Barbour Bibb Blount Bullock Butler Calhoun Chambers Cherokee Chilton Choctaw Clarke Clay Cleburne Coffee Colbert Conecuh Coosa Covington Crenshaw Cullman Dale Dallas DeKalb Elmore Escambia Etowah Fayette Franklin Geneva Greene Hale Henry Houston Jackson Jefferson 2 0 7 14 0 0 7 0 0 0 11 27 0 0 0 77 5 5 16 2 0 10 1 1 16 7 32 15 20 0 234 4 9 26 6 20 300 23 13 52 632 701 91 32 76 15 42 74 42 58 9 11 89 19 53 15 17 19 5 7 26 14 46 25 25 37 38 22 15 33 13 42 43 52 135 44 46 79 76 52 21 61 17 124 65 10 59 51 61 128 97 48 80 91 108 75 50 149 113 97 39 51 156 5 158 0 91 37 31 0 1 24 4 27 0 0 22 0 29 38 10 5 36 3 42 0 18 6 0 7 36 149 42 253 108 53 4 71 2 18 39 37 60 222 0 35 85 35 16 42 8 0 7 14 30 17 17 41 0 90 35 36 53 61 47 48 1 92 79 31 138 123 6 0 20 14 51 52 164 39 94 61 0 0 0 0 0 20 30 24 11 0 4 7 10 30 20 171 174 164 6 9 0 64 20 r ~J I 23 84 u~i 31 3 1 23 41 56 86 93 52 208 (Continued on next page) 59 APPENDIX TABLE Real Estate Properties 8.-RuralAlabama, 1928-1933. Sold for Taxes by Counties, 1928 12 11 2 0 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 153 0 14 0 10 2 0 0 0 13 24 5 0 0 6 1 31 1 12 1929 11 12 10 5 4 4 4 13 8 17 9 190 11 22 5 17 7 0 11 0 17 64 2 20 0 25 6 56 1 16 1930 9 28 17 11 20 3 4 3 27 17 44 211 20 21 35 14 2 4 28 28 21 74 0 41 0 31 42 46 5 40 1931 33 103 27 30 108 5 13 77 44 44 103 338 35 40 125 30 15 0 70 53 48 86 7 56 32 35 101 39 7 I 63, _7 1932 37 102 .QII 1933 28 79 38 35 22 17 11 0 62 32 50 518 46 55 Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence Lee Limestone Lowndes Macon Madison Marengo Marion Marshall Mobile Monroe Montgomery Morgan Perry Pickens Pike Randolph Russell St. Clair Shelby Sumter Talladega Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker Washington Wilcox Winston -- - .g 45 62 122 18 17 113 89 94 190 528 82 56 173 79 53 37 100 135 80 101 17 82 51 97 119 155 12 106 85 65 0 0 64 67 111 113 14 105 0 70 131 3 9 110 I 60 APPENDIX TABLE 9.-Taxes Due on Rural Real Estate Sold for Taxes by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1933. THE STATE Autauga Baldwin Barbour Bibb Blount Bullock Butler Calhoun Chambers Cherokee Chilton Choctaw Clarke Clay Cleburne Coffee Colbert Conecuh Coosa Covington Crenshaw Cullman Dale Dallas DeKalb Elmore Escambia Etowah Fayette Franklin Geneva Greene Hale Henry Houston Jackson Jefferson Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence Lee Limestone Lowndes Macon Madison Marengo Marion Marshall Mobile Monroe Montgomery Morgan Perry Pickens Pike Randolph Russell 1928 $20,430 9 $ 25 0 80 1,020 0 0 129 0 0 0 237 690 0 0 0 3,721 0 9 716 28 383 0 0 1,132 0 428 655 0 65 0 0 0 403 0 554 31 283 210 51 0 0 0 134 38 23 0 0 5,367 0 1,064 0 1,212 34 0 0 0 1929 $35,372 $ 426 8,666 174 68 619 21 0 581 33 10 220 239 804 180 241 0 1,336 141 82 876 197 620 0 106 124 0 79 91 257 354 413 0 0 76 162 441 1,090 184 200 353 160 122 221 277 264 127 302 188 6,621 162 1,333 148 545 200 0 249 0 1930 $77,464 $1,122 8,727 348 108 1,387 268 410 470 632 146 438 391 896 485 329 1,569 1,772 479 526 1,662 73 2,153 39 151 1,421 447 917 909 344 621 1,205 0 0 707 765 444 4,737 164 936 565 518 1,067 820 156 62 1,080 3,598 1,397 16,715 278 1,732 1,241 272 49 228 814 1,550 1931 $121,521 $1,614 9,269 977 197 1,594 380 191 1,745 388 1,318 977 1,795 2,580 673 814 4,959 3,587 1,613 403 1,855 543 3,035 2,133 323 2,668 1,017 1,104 1,325 1,173 903 1,645 252 570 691 2,629 2,038 2,928 746 2,772 1,098 1,173 5,704 83 619 3,261 1,097 1,347 3,491 12,035 1,135 2,151 6,095 944 614 0 1,763 2,726 1932 $246,053 $ 1,897 25,889 3,059 792 2,956 962 912 3.290 2,590 1,925 1,754 2,519 1,875 1.43j 820 8,378 5,212 1,996 6,787 4,405 1,612 6,326 4,633 528 7,036 0 3,586 2,552 1,192 1,464 7,009 712 1,590 1,242 7,746 5,423 7,100 1,746 5,105 2,940 1,942 4,974 839 1,064 4,707 2,887 2,495 6,083 20,449 3,487 1,727 9,513 2,544 1,770 2,163 2,785 2,600 1933 $155,336 $ 1,660 16,704 1,890 387 1,815 1,151 487 2,001 599 1,968 1,482 1,508 2,270 1,809 699 1,532 2,147 2,686 71 5,691 0 1,965 1,049 227 2,299 859 7,378 3,390 673 2,638 2,142 352 117 0 1,921 1,041 12 699 617 3,234 1,627 1,206 1,382 1,456 544 0 2,635 594 1,589 20,139 2,368 4,138 2,512 2,373 0 0 1,356 3,891 (Continued on next page) 61 APPENDIX TABLE 9.-Taxes Due on Rural Real Estate Sold for Taxes by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1933. 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 St. Clair Shelby Sumter Talladega Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker Washington Wilcox Winston - 528 331 32 0 0 105 15 483 22 183 - 1,840 627 10 281 0 717 237 938 22 317 - 2,099 880 0 839 0 640 1,025 782 131 729 - 2,164 1,237 94 1,597 986 902 1,533 703 390 1,155 - 2,874 1,991 373 2,293 1,806 4,036 2,823 7,752 369 1,714 - 2,874 2,559 228 3,037 0 2,791 2,387 52 454 1,986 62 APPENDIX TABLE 10.-Acres of Rural Real Estate Sold for Taxes by Counties, Alabama, 1928-1933. THE STATE Autauga Baldwin Barbour Bibb Blount Bullock Butler Calhoun Chambers Cherokee Chilton Choctaw Clarke Clay Cleburne Coffee Colbert Conecuh Coosa Covington Crenshaw Cullman Dale Dallas DeKalb Elmore Escambia Etowah Fayette Franklin Geneva Greene Hale Henry Houston Jackson Jefferson Lamar Lauderdale Lawrence Lee Limestone Lowndes Macon Madison Marengo Marion Marshall Mobile Monroe Montgomery Morgan Perry Pickens Pike Randolph Russell 1928 71.471 8 50 0 783 4,236 0 0 516 0 0 0 1.089 4,542 0 0 0 5,637 0 40 3,504 69 2,582 0 0 3,225 0 2,065 123 0 278 0 0 0 2,895 0 1,769 36 1,766 880 160 0 0 0 320 121 80 0 0 16,989 0 3,750 0 4,792 310 0 0 0 1929 337,565 2,031 41,665 1,228 306 2,362 110 0 3,134 110 40 940 1,364 9,645 838 2,548 0 175,994 815 539 4,724 865 3,570 0 3,804 571 0 235 407 2,298 2,402 1,604 0 0 430 602 1,836 1,315 1,213 827 984 546 323 1,727 497 504 745 1,923 806 26,803 863 4,474 252 2,640 939 0 824 0 1930 378,472 6,707 43,404 2.693 694 5,502 1,240 2,425 1,664 2,094 1,280 2,288 1,614 5,660 3,023 2,748 5,841 10,073 2,454 2,833 7,434 214 49,012 60 6,604 3,579 2,946 6,448 4,143 1,687 5.603 4,671 0 0 5.310 2,693 4,610 6,315 1,000 3,927 1,904 1,497 2,863 1,163 475 415 6,611 33,721 4,385 44,647 1,021 6,631 3,114 1,694 220 805 2,889 10,700 1931 540,792 8,771 42,818 4,951 1,635 5,490 2,324 733 9,591 1,868 4,438 4,984 11.010 13,289 3,961 6.699 15,033 22,034 15,644 2,908 9.291 2,021 13,757 6,935 8,848 6,929 4,777 7,742 9,017 6,423 5,546 6,707 1,010 2,570 4,838 8,993 13,474 6,081 4,259 8,191 8,251 7,825 16,007 440 3,437 6,632 5,046 10,096 13,572 34,643 6,239 7,547 18,091 5,077 4,175 0 7,024 17,365 1932 1,126,310 10,057 113,710 17,706 4,573 22,281 6,343 4,449 12,469 5,284 7,759 7,673 17,046 14,405 11,007 5,633 25,820 19,211 9,450 16,006 19,392 6,555 23,629 17,732 19,898 21,180 0 24,923 9,387 8,435 12,763 27,165 1,630 6,798 5,180 27,377 33,910 9,876 17,060 15,189 7,858 9,858 16,660 5,819 6,061 17,117 14,000 22,935 21,896 49,642 25,100 6,872 26,958 14,821 9,046 8,282 12,152 47,821 1933 703,782 10,698 80,416 15,197 2,227 7,889 5,351 2,997 7,313 2,216 8,842 14,669 8,854 18,414 13,021 4,902 5,011 7,791 13,425 782 27,115 0 7,432 5,822 5,148 9,691 4,850 42,592 13,771 4,445 15,057 8,563 982 1,076 0 7,330 6,029 14,306 3,983 12,925 5,486 7,256 4,047 10,685 3,174 0 11,320 4,741 5,109 58,397 19,027 19,631 6,335 13,906 0 0 6,721 21,193 (Continued on next page) 63 APPENDIX TABLE 10.-Acres of Rural Real Estate Alabama, 1928-1933. St. Clair Shelby Sumter Talladega Tallapoosa Tuscaloosa Walker Washington Wilcox Winston r 11101' 1928 2,352 2,295 300 0 0 793 41 1,816 235 1,024 1929 2,984 7,635 160 1,315 0 3,558 1,228 3,785 80 1,598 11 1930 3,922 10,106 0 3,930 0 3,790 3,049 2,665 588 5,169 Sold for Taxes by Counties, 1932 15,887 10,043 3,703 11,908 10,049 19,487 14,250 65,456 1,744 11,924 1933 I 1931 7,099 11,266 826 6,595 3,632 4,393 5,411 3,351 1,717 9.445 21,484 II I 11,213 2,103 13,761 0 13,352 7,984 211 1,655 13,859 APPENDIX TABLE 11.-Farm Value per Head of Horses, Mules, Cattle, and Hogs, Per Cent of Farm Value Assessed fo Taxes and Per Cent that Assessed Value on Exempted and Taxed Cattle and Hogs is of Market Value, _________________Alabama, 1910-1937(1) (2) (3). MulesTT' Value per Per -55 Horses Year 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 Value per head 104 99 106 113 96 101 99 116 128 130 9171 77 79 78 70 68 63 66 66 65 51 46 45 64 73 Per a sessed 67 71 64 64 78 58 56 41 43 47 71 59 cent cent 55 56 57 68 55 51 47 39 45 68 67 68 51. 64 54 57 47 48 49 57 63 57 36 29 28 36 52 head 130 127 131 135 114 121 118 141 157 174 114 95 100 100 90 95 84 95 95 93 74 62 65 91 112 135 148 111 assessed Value per head 16 17 17 21 21 21 24 31 37 36 24 18 17 17 16 18 2'0 28 32 33 22 16 12 12 13 17 20 21 88 99 84 55 60 59 65 59 61 60 69 70 62 39 38 33 51 - Cattle Per cent assessed value is of total value Exempted Taxed 50 94 53 106 43 106 41 511 95 48 86 71 46 112 35 58 35 68 86 42 92 100 83 83 85 76 65 65 75 75 56 56 65 21 32 34 47 61 30 55 86 56 112 58 117 75 100 92 46 35 53 40 65 i Value per head 7 6 7 8 8 8 14 17 13 10 9 8 10 10 11 10 10 10 8 5 4 4 6 8 9 9 Hlogs Per cent assessed value is of total value Exempted Taxed 143 50 14 50 62 25 38 50 47 77 100 67 48 62 60 70 64 90 80 100 100 60 75 ,200 125 67 62 56 68 57 67 71. 62 62 50 62 43 47 69 100 89 78 100 90 100 73 70 90 90 100 160 175 100 88 111 89 ',, (1) All 58 Yearbook of I Agriculture. 1 53 Source: U.S.D.A. I 80 I Sample of six counties consisting of Marshall, Etowah, DeKalh, Tallapoosa, Dallas. and G4reene was used to determine the average assesse values. (3) The farm value per head on January 1 was divided into. the assessed value for the preceeding year because of assessment date falling on October 1 (2) AGRICU ILTIURAL ENGlINEERlING: Iead Ai gricutiTural Engineering J1. HI. NeaT, I'l. 1). R. M. Alvril7 I 1. E. D. GoTrIon, M. S. E. G. IDiiher, M. S. 1. F. 13eed , M. Si . I ir 1 Kumme, At A. IV. Coolj~er" iT S'. 'SPIl 'IA .1. P. 1L E. NI 1NV 138'1I(; Din' --A'. itnt in Agriulit i Asi tnt Aistant I~ni-' I iiivlurtg, i i i(Coupi~. IlA ip. 1?.5. 1int A' C.S .A.) E llwnei~i' Ti in ir ililrl A i .'n A'gr iculinra En ~igineeinig g 'iIONSi: s irc T I', I '.ir ir. NT AI T 'd Spt iTl Invistigatiion' W;T -,' 'T WT. NI Lluio. MT. S. i.,i-rn Tl ri, ii i it lulrtu 1n' .ii TI ,tri, .Iiggi . . , M. F'. - - A.l ti in ITltn ul turo - -A si.~~ Ai g~TI Nguel Ti ie I 1{1,EItI SA L. TI: . KT lii r. I'l. 1)'Ti ii uti I' l oi I'O(LO( X uN 'IO'IH)I.O(IV: .I. T. 1'. N. 1. IL Ilubin in, M. Ph. 'Ii. h. T Il. 'T 1). ) IT,nT iT IT (pinK Engli. T, . anriT Zuo~gy-ETriTlTgv - i CuTturi H~ill). IiiiitiiTolg it AT trnt, A.Tii~in Ti I'll. (eailln iit. :ATvoiaiiie Itgis g l I ''T tI.. IA. and Slate FreiT Stewart, IT,.S. .I. K. 7;nseiP, 1. 8. 13. S. It. C. ('hristopheir, T. S, 1I. A. Pondr, , 13T 8 I .1. 1'. N'Tls C. A. I~rogidn, ImoI 8. --S .I Ii. G1. ITa , P. A. ClishTn, T. It. Jut ion, Ala,. O)tto 11,11 , NT. 8. -------DI. S. Hlarold Teste, aiTey SuitalloTn, ItiTli' Miina, Ala. 'enn. -- qit. ITITk Minaa. aT Tion T Tenni. :u .. : tiit.Tr~ ' iu=T io T. Cro-'..viTTT, AlT. an Tiiii upt. S ii nd~ S 'ri'.svilTle, Ala. .t'.ti, i, A-ti. Supt I~t ilNTuutiiin T~rgrs I IT~ulnI, Ala. ti . u~t i Su 'Tpt y. . - Su U AT,. 1T' iIan,, Isi Su -niTn '~ ''i Supt. Aiiir A-t.. Xl. n, .iuTi,, i . IaT. a'ioTin , nio upt. TTlacik Iiltt M~arion to Suilt. lBla I. Iie t SoTLsiiin, A!tnn i' A-. -An.st l'iilntuition, (uptTGufCoat 81- 1 oul. Gulf Coait Iubl. ition, FairTho(Tr, Fairlipe, Alia. Al'a.