mapleleaf

Family Forest Research Center

[ U.S. Forest Service ] [ University of Massachusetts Amherst ]

Effect of State & Local Taxes on Family Forests

In the United States, about 35% of the forestland is owned by 10 million family forest owners (Butler 2008). A wide range of policy tools have been adopted to encourage sustainable family forest management, including technical assistance, outreach education, financial incentives, regulations, as well as public ownership. Among these policies and programs, financial incentives, particularly tax incentives, play a prominent role (Kilgore et al. 2007). Research on tax incentives has mostly focused on three particular types of policies and programs: income tax, property tax, and estate tax. Although there is a rich body of literature on each individual type of tax policies and programs, no published studies have documented, analyzed, or compared three types of tax incentives simultaneously across various levels of government. This suggests a great need for an up-to-date, comprehensive understanding of existing tax policies and programs across the country, particularly at the state and local levels, and their impacts on family forest owners. Therefore, it is the goal of this proposed project to: 1) review and compare existing state and local family forest tax policies in all 50 states, 2) analyze the historic and projected impacts of tax policies on family forest owners, and 3) identify tax policies that would best encourage keeping family forests as forests and increasing sustainable forest management. Research grant has been awarded by the American Forest Foundation to support this project. 

References

  • Butler, B.J. 2008. Family forest owners of the United States, 2006. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-27. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.
  • Kilgore, M.A., J.L. Greene, M.G. Jacobson, T.J. Straka, S.E. Daniels. 2007. The influence of financial incentive programs in promoting sustainable forestry on the nation’s family forests. Journal of Forestry 105(4): 184-191.