31:2 3 2000
OPEN QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE EARLY KRAJCÁR-DENOMINATED TAX NOTICE FORMS

It is well known and regrettable that postal stationery and postal forms with imprinted stamps have been treated as the stepchildren of philately from the early days of stamp collecting. Even though cutouts from these had a place in the stamp albums printed at the turn of the last century, this well-intentioned attempt resulted in the destruction of a huge quantity of postal forms and stationery. As it became evident almost too late, the albums provided spaces for the cutouts of the imprinted stamps only. The collectors of that era paid heed to the spaces provided and proceeded to trim the denominated imprints from the forms and relegated the remainders of the documents to wastebaskets. The after-effects of this mass philatelic butchery are still being felt in some countries. For example, in the United States, the ordinary collectors are content to be able to buy cutouts of early stationery items at hefty prices while only dreaming of owning the surviving entire pieces, which remain outside of the financial reach of most.

Following the separation of the Hungary's postal system from that of Austria, the country's first postal stationery item was a postal card issued on October 1, 1869. This was followed in quick succession by stamped envelopes, closed postal cards, wrappers, money order and telegraph forms, postal savings cards, parcel post slips, etc. The tax notice forms (adóintés) also can be found in this grouping of newly introduced postal stationery items. These have remained relatively unknown and neglected by philatelists.

The payment of taxes was never a popular activity amongst the citizenry of any country. Today is not an exception. Many citizens of that era, wittingly or unwittingly, oftentimes 'forgot' their civic duty to settle their indebtedness with the national or municipal treasury. The adóintés forms were introduced to facilitate the collection of these debts. Separate cards were pre-printed for use in Budapest from those that were intended to be used in the provinces to notify citizens about their delinquent tax assessment. Tax notice forms were also prepared in languages other than Hungarian. The Croatian and Italian-language forms were intended for use in the Croatia-Slavonia and Fiume, respectively, which were non-Hungarian speaking areas of the kingdom served by the Hungarian Post.

Each tax notice form consisted of three sections. When laid out flat, the form was 146 x 240 mm in size. In folded condition, the form was the size of a normal postal card and was treated as such when it was sent out to the addressee. The tax office filled out the upper two-thirds of the form (Intés = Notice or Adóintés = Tax notice) with the pertinent information about the type of tax due, its sum and, naturally, the applicable interest penalty. The text concluded with the tax office's admonition to the addressee about the legal consequences of non-compliance with the payment of the assessment.

The bottom one-third of the form (Vétbizonyítvány = Proof of Receipt) was to be signed by the addressee upon receipt of the notification. This portion was then separated from the form and returned to the tax office as proof of delivery. The top two-thirds of the form was retained by the delinquent taxpayer. Both parts of the form carried an imprinted 2kr stamp. This imprint can be found on the same side of parts of the form or, sometimes, on opposite sides. Thus, the postal delivery of the tax notifications was insured in both directions, to the delinquent tax payer and back to the tax office to provide assurance of delivery (thus, providing the proof for further legal action in the event of non-payment).

During this time, the post offices were the sources of massive quantities of postal stationery items (postal cards, stamped envelopes), while tax offices were the only sources for tax notice forms. In the case of the former, the public had access to and could retain as many examples of postal stationery as desired. In the case of the latter, it was not normally possible for the general public to acquire tax forms in their original, unseparated condition. This is the reason for their relative scarcity. (Nevertheless, the axiom exception supports the rule applies here, too, as I will demonstrate later.) A similar situation exists in the case of the parcel post slips of Chile. Used pieces were retained by the post offices for a certain period of time, after which the slips were to be delivered to a paper mill for recycling in accordance with existing regulations. Theoretically, the public could not have retained any examples. Luckily for future collectors, this was not the case.

The existing information about tax forms is spotty at best. The lack of available material has restricted the knowledge and provided contradictory or even incorrect information about these pieces. Philatelic literature has treated this subject matter with benign neglect; even today, these items are barely mentioned. In order to present an all-encompassing assessment of these forms, a great deal of philatelic research needs to be undertaken to overcome the general insufficiency of material. My intent in this presentation is to spark interest amongst collectors. If the movement to study these pieces continues, then the questions posed here (and the ones that will evolve later) can be clearly answered in such a way, that a future author can collect the data and present it in an authoritative literary work.

The following sections are devoted to the discussion of the year of issue of the first tax notice forms, the paper on which they were printed, the watermark used, the imprinted text, the listing of the tax offices using the forms, and the cataloging and evaluation of relative value. For all of these areas, the available catalogs and literature provide spotty, contradictory or erroneous information. I'm proposing to challenge to my fellow collectors of postal stationery to scrutinize, critique, and expand on my discussion. In any case, even if only my erroneous conclusions are rectified, our general knowledge about tax notice forms will be expanded.

• Year of Issue

First of all, the year of issue needs to be solidified. The tax notice forms with the imprinted 2kr stamps were authorized by Directive Number 2662, dated January 1, 1884. The directive mentions three different forms (see A Magyar Bélyegek Monográfiája, Vol. III, p634). It does not provide any details, so we are not sure if the forms were authorized for issue in three different languages or text variations. Based on this above date, the catalogs published by Ascher, Senf, Michel, Higgins & Gage, and Dr. Simády uniformly show 1884 as the issue date for the first tax notice form. The Monográfiája contradicts this consensus in Vol. III, pp. 656-7. In the text and in the accompanying illustration, the date indicated is 1881. If the cds used to cancel the form was set accurately, then the second digit in the year which looks like a '1' is really a worn-out '4' and the date printed in the text needs to be corrected to '1884.' The current owner of the piece used in the illustration or the authors of the Monográfiája text could be a source of clarification for this confusion.

• Paper & Watermark

The catalogs listed above are all in agreement that the tax notice forms were printed on unwatermarked paper. In his catalog, Dr. Simády footnotes this with the statement, "one example of the Tax Notice form number 1h. is known with watermark number VII." It is conceivable that only one example was known at the time the catalog data was assembled. Since then, multiple watermarked copies have come to light. At one time, the owners of these copies thought that they were in the possession of a world-class rarity. László Hrabál in Hungary, István Bakács in the US and even I boasted of owning copies of the watermarked variety. A few years ago, two other examples were offered in the Hungarofila auction. Fellow collector James Franz from the US has all four positions of the watermark in his collection. It is hardly debatable that other examples must exist in collections worldwide.

Uniqueness as an attribute, especially when dealing with collecting postal stationery, items must be handled with reservation. Postal stationery items are printed in sheets just like stamps. The sheets are separated into individual items after the printing is completed. We are aware of the facts that postal cards were printed in sheets of 32, stamped envelopes in sheets of 9, and the tax notice forms in sheets of 12. This in itself is a great eliminating force for the 'unique' classification. I will revisit the watermark issue; however, I would like to make the comment that the known watermarked example was prepared for the tax office of Third District of Budapest. My conclusion is that other tax forms also exist on watermarked paper.

• The Imprint and Text Variations on the Front Side of the Forms

The 2kr imprint was the same on all of the forms: Type II with 111 background lines in the design. These indicators of value were printed on the forms in two variations; that is, either both imprints of the same side of the form or the second imprint (the one on the detachable lower third of the form) on the opposite side from the first one. The Michel catalog assigns a separate number to the form, which has the imprints on opposite sides (DPB 8) and indicates 1886 as the year of issue. (This date contradicts the one given in the Simády catalog.) It is unlikely that both variations were printed at the same time, so the issue date stated in Michel should not be ignored.

Since three consecutive dates, 1881, 1884, and 1886, are given in the references, it behooves us to analyze the printing variations found in the pre-printed text on the forms. The differences seem to have a direct connection with and may help in clearing up the confusion in the issue dates. The pre-printed dates occur in two formats, 188... and 18..., and they are missing altogether on forms from the 1890s as indicated by Dr. Simády. Furthermore, the cuts in the rouletting utilized to help remove the bottom return receipt portion of the form changed from 4mm to 10mm. This may not be a very significant data point unlike the capital letters on the front (bottom left corner) identifying the type (minta).

A greater importance should be placed on which branch of the tax collection office utilized the forms as denoted by the pre-printed return address. The letters A through K were utilized to identify types (A. minta, etc.), and collectors can use these designators to describe the different Types A, B, B, etc. Although the contents of the pre-printed text does not have philatelic significance, organizing the types by text can be helpful in furthering our research. The largest number of variations in the text can be found on Hungarian-language cards; however, one must understand that the Hungarian-language comprised a far greater portion of the kingdom than the Croatian or Italian-language areas.

• A. minta (Type A.)

The heading reads ADÓINTÉS (54mm long, ornate typesetting). The table shows a possible six types of taxes (adó) to be collected. The acknowledgement of receipt form is pre-printed with the text 'A ... hivatalnak' and the corresponding town name was entered by hand.

• B. minta (Type B.)

This form was used by the collection bureau of the Royal Hungarian Tax Oversight Office of the Capital City (Fövárosi M. kir. adófelügyelö). The heading and tax collection table is the same as on Type A.

• C. minta (Type C.)

The heading reads INTÉS (35mm long, ornate typesetting). The table shows a possible three types of documentary revenue taxes (illeték) to be collected. The acknowledgement of receipt form is pre-printed with the text 'A ... m. kir. adóhivatalnak' and the corresponding town name was entered by hand.

• D. minta (Type D.)

This form was used by the Royal Hungarian Central Office for Establishing Fees and Documentary Revenue Rates (Magy. kir. központi díj- és illetékszabási hivatal). The heading and tax collection table is the same as on Type C.

• E. minta (Type E.)

This form was used by the collection bureau of the Royal Hungarian Tax Oversight Office of the Capital City (Fövárosi M. kir. adófelügyelö). The heading and tax collection table is the same as on Type C.

From the similar typesetting and the uniformity of the pre-printed text, it can be concluded that Types A through E were produced at the same time by the same printing office. It can be noted that the formula for penalizing delinquent taxes was different from the formula for delinquent documentary revenue fees. In both instances, however, the grace period for payment of the assessment was eight days.

The following five types of tax notices were prepared for specific districts of Budapest

• F. minta (Type F), District I.

• G. minta (Type G), District II.

• H. minta (Type H), District III.

• J. minta (Type J), District IV.

• K. minta (Type K), District V.

On Types F through K, the word ADÓINTÉS was 35mm long and was printed with grotesque type. Otherwise, the text and the table of taxes indicates the same as on the backside of the Type A form.

The five districts encompassed Castle Hill, Old Buda, and the Embankment on the right (Buda) side of the Danube as well as the Inner City and Lipótváros on the Pest side. Since Budapest was divided up into ten districts at the turn of the century, it is logical to ask the question why no forms were prepared for the remaining districts? How were the tax delinquencies of the citizens of the other parts of the city, Teréz-, Erzsébet-, József-, and Ferencváros and Köbánya handled? It is highly improbable that these districts were inhabited by dedicated compatriots, who paid their taxes promptly and thus did not require coaxing or oversight from a tax office. The logical explanation for this puzzle probably is available with a little digging in the municipal archives of Budapest.

As it mentioned before, there is no debating the fact that the tax forms exist on watermarked paper. The Simády catalog's contention that the watermarked examples can be found on the Type H forms prepared for the Third District Tax Office is not an entirely true statement. This misunderstanding stems from the fact that both the 1884 Type H form and the 1881 issue mentioned only in the Monográfiája were prepared for use by the Third District Tax Office. The Simády catalog's assertion still seems to be true but only if the top two-thirds of the form are examined because the pre-printed text refers to the Third District office and thus corresponds with the text on the Type H form. If, however, the forms are examined in their entirety, that is, the three parts fully opened, then it becomes obvious that the watermarked, 1881 issue form carries the imprint C. minta = Type C. These forms are identified erroneously in the Monográfiája as Type C 30, a variety that has never been located either in or outside of Hungary.

Furthermore, the following differences can be observed on the two versions of the Third District form:

• C. minta, Type C (watermarked): large (33mm) diameter circle, no footnote underneath the circle;

• H. minta, Type H (unwatermarked): small (20mm) diameter circle, Figyelmeztetés footnote with two-line text added.

It is not known what prompted the authorities to issue a Type C form alongside the Types A & B in 1881. Perhaps the latter were not acceptable for some reason and the next letter in the sequence was a 'C.'

• Cataloging and Placing a Value on the Tax Notice Forms.

As mentioned previously, the bottom third of the tri-fold tax notice forms was the Proof of Delivery, which was signed by the recipient, torn from the rest of the form and returned to the tax office. The basic notice, which consisted of the top two-thirds of the form, was retained by the addressee. In theory, therefore, full, three-part forms can not exist in used condition; and the catalogs do not carry a listing for them in that condition. However, the reality of the situation is different. Tax notice forms, which could not be delivered for whatever reason, were returned to the tax office intact. Usually, the reason for non-delivery was annotated on the address side. Pencilled in notes such as 'The addressee is not known at 20 Szerecseny Street' or 'The addressee is deceased. Return.' One letter carrier exhibited a greater originality by noting the following: 'The addressee moved out of the house at 10 Fömö Street. Where? This is not known.' In my opinion, the three-part, used forms deserve a distinct place in the catalogs because they were properly serviced postally and do not represent 'philatelic creations.' Other non-deliverable/returned postal documents have a place and an added value in philatelic collections; so, returned tax notice forms deserve the same treatment. In school we were taught Cogito, ergo sum. We exist, therefore, don't ignore us seems to be the cry for recognition from the tax notice forms. Should this matter ever come up for a vote, I would be first in line to cast my ballot in favor of cataloging the intact, used forms.

There is no data available for the quantities of forms printed in 1881, 1884 or 1886. In the Payer listing found in the Monográfiája, Vol. III, p.637, the space for the quantity issued is left blank or is marked with a question mark. 1888 is the first year that we have data for and after that for every year through 1897. The largest quantity listed is for 1891, during which year 22,608 sheets consisting of 12 cards were prepared. 1895 is the year with the smallest quantity produced, only 2,500 sheets. Nevertheless, we don't have any details about which variety of the cards was reprinted each year in order to meet the demand. Naturally, the varieties in the pre-printed dates have a link to the years of production. Establishing a link for this should be a worthwhile task for a future researcher.

As far as placing value on these cards, the task is formidable because of the small supply in the philatelic marketplace. At best, only relative valuations are possible. Hungarian-language pieces are the easiest to acquire and most of these are full, tri-fold forms, unused remainders from the tax office stock. The Type D form, interestingly enough, is the dominant variety. Used examples of the notice part of the form are the next most common collectible variety; while the intact, used (returned) forms are a distant third. The last category items are considered scarce. The acquisition of the Croatian language forms, especially in used condition, requires a bit of luck. The Italian-language forms, of which two types were issued for the town of Fiume and its environs, completes the list. These items belong in the seldom-seen category. Through the courtesy of my collecting friend László Hrabál who is fortunate to possess one, I have acquired a photocopy of an Italian-language form but I don't own an actual piece, yet.

It was a daunting task to try to categorize the tax notice forms based on the varieties of the pre-printed text found on them. Because of the lack of other basic data, there was no other choice but to do it this way. Research into non-philatelic databases could provide further clues. A good example of the fruits of such endeavor is revealed in the case of the 1892 advertising postal cards. My friend Bob Jensen and I proved the existence of six types of text on these cards while the catalogs and the Monográfiája listed only five. If we could reach similar results with identifying the differences in the tax notice forms, then we could resolve the elusive answers to these questions and achieve uniformity in cataloging these forms.

I would like to express my appreciation to László Hrabál, István Bakács, and James Franz for providing me help, support, and photocopies from their collections so that I could compile this presentation.

Emmerich Vamos

	Simády #	Higgins & Gage Catalog Number (V)
Type / Minta	1884	1884 Issue		1884 Issue	1886 Issue	Notes 3
Unless indicated otherwise, both stamp imprints are on the same side of the card	1 2	Grotesque / 188...		Ornate / 188...	Ornate / 18...	Typesetting / Printed date
A. minta.	1a			V5 4, 5	V5a	Adóintés 54mm
B. minta.	1b			V5b 4		Adóintés 54mm
C. minta.	1c		V1: 6 stamp imprints on opposite sides	V6 4	V6a	V1: Adóintés 35mm V6 / V6a: Intés 35mm
D. minta.	1d			V6b 4, 5		Intés 35mm
E. minta.	1e			V6c 4		Intés 35mm
	7	stamp imprints on the same side8	stamp imprints on opposite sides			Type F through K: Adóintés 35mm
F. minta.	1f	V2	V1a 4
G. minta.	1g	V2a	V1b 4
H. minta.	1h	V2b	V1c 4			exists with watermark VII
J. minta.	1i	V2c	V1d 4
K. minta.	1j	V2d	V1e 4
	1			Antiqua		Typesetting
A. minta. / Italian	2a			V4 4		Adóintés
C. minta. / Italian	2b			V8 4		Intés
A. minta. / Croatian	3a			V3 4		Porezna...
	1 2			Ornate / 188...	Ornate / 18...	Typesetting / Printed date
C. minta. / Croatian	3b			V7 4	V7a	Opomena

Footnotes:

¹ Simády does not specify the style of typesetting used for the tax table heading on the forms.

² Simády footnotes the date varieties of '188...' and '18...' as well as alludes to the existence of non-predated printings from the late-1890s.

³ The rouletting between the body of the tax notice form and the detachable signature-receipt is either 4mm or 10mm long.

⁴ Listed in A Magyar Bélyegek Monográfiája, Vol. III, pp. 656, 658.

⁵ Monográfiája lists two typesetting varieties for the text on the front side: grotesque and antiqua.

⁶ Monográfiája incorrectly lists this as Type 'C 30' and indicates 1881 as the year of issue. The text on the address side and the tax table heading is listed erroneously as they appear on card # H & G V6.

⁷ Simády footnotes the imprint varieties 'on the same side' and 'on opposite sides' but does not specify which cards exist in both versions.

⁸ Monográfiája indicates that every third card exists with the stamp imprints on the same side.

Table by Csaba L. Kohalmi

Used with permission from the Editor