The Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1863-1886, 1865-04-20
FARMERS INCOME TAX.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT, !
OFFICE INT. REVENUE,
, Washington, March 18th, 'G5. J

4 DIR: 1our letter OF March 9th, in
regard to including in farmers returns
soi produce sold in 1864, that portion
Eof such produce which was rnised in
1863, and taxed as income for that
I year, is rec eived.
l reply, that the act of June 80, 1864.
srequires the whole amount of produce
sold within the year to be returned as
aincome for the year. The fact that
sany part of such produce was raised
sand taxed as income in any previous
syeary does not exempt such produce
from taxation as income for the year
when sold. 1t is true that in cases
ssimilar TO that mentioned in your let
ster, where particular product is con.
ssldered, two income taxes will be OBJ
stained from the same income.
a But this is an apparent, rather than
30 real injustice. For, while certain
sproducts, not raised in 1864, are re-
aturned as income for that year, other
Aproducts which uere raised in that
Syear will be omitted. And taking in.
Eto account all the years in which in
Acomo has been or will be taxed, by
5these two methods, the amount Of pro.
.duce sold in 1862, and which, having
abeen raised in previous years, was moi
Mtaxed, and the amount Of produce
3raiscd in the last year of tax andun
ssold, and therefore not taxed, will bC
9greatcr than the amount of produce
ssubiected to two income taxes. Al
flowing the aggregate crop to be on ar
Isaveragc the same, year by year, it is
Aevidently just that the produce taxed
Seach year should equal in amount that
Aof each other year. And if, in 1864
Nonly such products are taxed as were
Eraised and. sold in that year, it is plair
Ethat the tax for that year will be as
Hsessed upon only part Of years
Eproduce, inasmuch as the whole ofany
Ecrop is seldom sold within the yeal
Ewhen raised.
n Suppose, for example, the average
b income Of A. from the produce of hi
Hfarm, to be $1,000, and that he uniior
m Emily sells certain proportion of hi
Acrop, as one fourth or one half, th,
Bsame year, and the remainder the fol
Flowing year. Then if the rule rcquir
Ming him to make return Of the entir,
EcrOp raised had continued in force, A
Hwould have sold three fourth of crol
Gin 1862, which, having been raised il
H1S61, would escape taxation. But in
Easmuch as the yearly product is tn
II same, the income tax of A is uniform
IS land no injustice appears against eithe
/ Ethe taxpayer or the Revenue.
ri And if the present rule, requiring
Ethc produce sold to be returned as in
scome, had prevailed from the first, al
Ethough A would have paid tax Oh
Ethreo: :fourths of the crop Of 1861, ye
las like proportion of the last crol
kwill escape taxation, it appears agail
Ethat neither the taxpayer nor the Rev
+ 5enue is dcfrauded. Yet it is plain tha
Eundcr either rule, as in force for til
Hwholc time, or under the change Of on
Il Erule for the other, there will be, an,
~ would have been, cases Of hardship
Harising from the fact that farmers d
'Hnot uniformly sell or keep on hand
-Efxed proportion of each years Pre-
-Educe.
n Now, under the two rules in fore
.Ebclorc or after June 30, 1864, A wi
sE Ehavc paid for 1862 an income tax 0
lone entire crop--that raised in ,1S6:
lin 1863 his income tax was also on tn
CENTRE crop of the year. In 1864, Ii
IHwill also pay tax on the amount Of q
Eentiro crop, one-fourth Of which wi
81 eEhave been raised in 1864, and the II
-Hmaindcr in 1868, but sold in 1861
rAThe income tax for 1865 will also |
e Eassessed upon the value of one entil
,Hcrop; so that in no year will he |
-StaXed for an amount greater than I'll
nB income of the year. Yet it will |
lEtruc that three-fourths of the Gro
}, sraiscd in 1868 will have paid two il
i come taxes,
~ And this second tax is duo from Il
Efact that either like proportion
4 the crop sold in 1862 escaped taxatic
1Hbecause raised in 1861, or the san
r proportion of the crop of the last ye;
E Eof tax will escape, because unsold, a
Ell Ecording as we consider the form,
/, rule or the latter to have prevaile
kduring the whole period.
J.. Therefore, in the case mentioned
= your letter, the produce returned
). B1963, at q valuation of SI,150, and so
G in 1864 for $1,000, must also be retur
"a cd as income for 1864, at $4,000.
r Very respectfully,
II [Signed] JOSEPH ]. LEWIS,
Commissions
T., GEO. D. COPELAND, Esq,
h. Assessor 10th Dist. Ind, Goshen, In