The Petitioner contends the
property should never have been reclassified in 2002 from agricultural acreage
to commercial acreage.
…
The Respondent contends that
the subject parcels were reassessed from agricultural to commercial acreage
during the March 1, 2002, reassessment because there was a change in use. Assessor’s
Response at 2. According to the Respondent, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-13
allows for land to be assessed as agricultural land only when it is devoted to
agricultural use. Id. The parcels have not been devoted to agricultural
purpose since they were conveyed to the developers in the 1990s and thus, the
Respondent argues, the land has not been entitled to the agricultural land rate
for years. Id. at 3.
The Respondent’s argument has
some merit. The Board has frequently issued decisions determining that land was
not entitled to be assessed as agricultural land when the property was not “devoted
to agriculture.” See e.g., Leavesley v. Boone County Assessor, Petition
No. 06-019-08-1-5-00031, (Aug. 30, 2010) (“Here the Petitioners only argued
that their land has 50% canopy cover. They offered no evidence to show that the
land was used for any agricultural purpose on March 1, 2008, much less that it
was ‘devoted’ to agriculture. According to Mr. Leavesley, the property is only
used by his family to access the creek and for nature walks. Thus, the
Petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the property is devoted to an ‘agricultural
use.’”); and Neukum v. Hall Township Assessor, Petition No.
19-006-06-1-5-00019 (August 28, 2008) (“Here, the Petitioner admitted that,
while he arranged to have hay cut, it was not his intention in 2006 to grow hay
on the property. The Petitioner planted no crop. He pastured no animals. He
simply chose to have the existing vegetation cut on the parcel. This falls well
below the burden to show that the property is ‘devoted’ to agricultural use.”)
However, the Board has also
noted in many circumstances that specific legislation trumps general assessment
principles. See e.g., JDPHD Investment Group v. Monroe County Assessor, Petition
No. 53-005-07-1-4-00083 (Sept. 13, 2010) (“This is not a case where an assessor’s
valuation of a property according to the Assessment Guidelines is presumed to
be accurate. And this is not a case where an assessor has discretion to choose
among the cost method, the comparable sales method, the income capitalization
method, or other generally accepted appraisal principles to determine the
assessed value of the subject property because Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-39(a)
specifies how the assessed value must be determined.”)
The Tax Court in Aboite determined
that the developer’s discount statute is “designed to encourage developers to
buy farmland, divide it into lots, and resell the lots.” Aboite Corp. v.
State Board of Tax Commissioners, 762 N.E.2d 254, 257 (Ind. Tax Ct.2001).
While the Tax Court there determined that the property at issue had changed in
use, it was the construction of a shopping center on the unsold lot; rather
than the cessation of farming activity which the Court cited as the change in
use. 762 N.E.2d at 258. In fact, the Court noted, “assuming arguendo that
Aboite merely decided to ‘hold off’ in selling its vacant lot until a later
date, the intent of the exception would prevail, and the land would continue to
be assessed on its original agricultural acreage basis.” Id. However,
“[b]ecause Aboite converted the vacant lot into an income-producing property,”
the Court found “the intent of the exception is frustrated.” Id.
Here,
the Petitioner did not sell its vacant lots; rather the lots remained vacant
and did not change use. Thus, the Board finds that the Petitioner’s properties
should have continued with their agricultural assessments.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Allisonville_Road_Development_29-006-08-1-4-00066_and_67.pdf
