What Tax Rate(S) Were Being Paid Here?

This one is a bit of a head-scratcher. It's a duplicate land contract, executed in 1867, with a total of 9 cents tax affixed, which is an odd number. I bought it because it has a 5-cent Playing Cards improperly used as a documentary.

Looking at the dates, it appears that the 9 cents tax were affixed on 2 different dates:

7 cents on April 24, 1867 (date of execution of the contract)
2 cents on June 1, 1867 (date the first payment was made)

Looking at the tax rates:

https://revenue-collector.com/civil...xrates.shtml

The rates under "contract" pertain to broker's contracts and sales of bullion, so even though this is called a contract, those aren't the applicable rates.

"Agreement" would have the rate at 5 cents per sheet of paper (1862) or per transaction (1864 onwards). The document is complete as shown. The back has preprinted information, but nothing filled out that would indicate a secondary transaction, so 5 cents should have been the tax rate.

The only thing I can come up with is the following:

1. 5 cents paying agreement tax on April 24.
2. 2 cents paying receipt tax for the $100 payment made on April 24 when the contract was executed.
3. 2 cents tax paying receipt tax for the June 1 payment.

Does that sound plausible? What about the remaining 9 $100 payments? Presumably 2-cents tax was due on each of those payments. Individual receipts not part of this document?

But if the single-sheet document (agreement) comprised 2 transactions (down payment plus first payment), shouldn't the tax have been 10 cents per the Agreement schedule since there were 2 transactions on the same document?

Your explanation sounds correct to me. The document and the payments are different transactions, each requiring a tax to be paid.

Here is my question. This is a duplicate Land Contract. The seller held the original Land Contract. Two pieces of paper documenting one transaction. I assume they both owe a tax, and probably the same tax (at the outset, at least, prior to subsequent payments being documented)? It really pours cement on the concept that they're taxing the piece of paper, and not the transaction.

I assume there was one deed issued at the end of the Land Contract term (assuming it was paid in full), and that the value of the transaction was taxed at that time.

ETA: Now I wonder if a tax on the value of this contract was due at the time of execution, in addition to the tax that would be due at the time of the Deed? If so, would that tax be affixed on the original Land Contract?

(Only for what it's worth, I think there were 100 monthly payments contemplated. $100 down, and $1,000 paid over time.)

The tax on checks was 2 cents regardless of the amount of the check. The tax on receipts of $20 and over was 2 cents regardless of the amount of the receipt. Whether you call it a tax on the transaction or a tax on the document is really immaterial, since the tax stamp was applied when the check was written, and not when it was cashed. So even if it was never cashed for some reason, the tax was still paid. The assumption of the government was that a transaction was taking place or going to take place, so that is really what was being taxed, but the document itself was not valid or legal without the stamps.