Here, the Petitioner’s witness contends that the Petitioner’s
property should be assessed as agricultural land rather than residential land.
According to Mr. Spencer, approximately two acres of the Petitioner’s property
is being farmed and approximately one acre is planted in trees.
Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-13 states that “[i]n assessing or
reassessing land, the land shall be assessed as agricultural only when it is
devoted to agricultural use.” Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-13(a). The word “devote”
means “to give or apply (one’s time, attention, or self) completely.” WEBSTER’S
II NEW RIVERSIDE DICTIONARY 192 (revised edition). Agricultural use is the
“production of crops, fruits, timber, and the raising of livestock.” REAL PROPERTY
ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES, Glossary, p.1.
There is no dispute that approximately two acres of the
Petitioner’s property is being farmed with traditional row crops. See
Petitioner Exhibit 8. The Respondent’s representative only argues that the
property should not be assessed as agricultural because the Petitioner herself
does not do any of the farming. However, there is no requirement that a
property be farmed by the owner of the land and the Board will not read such a
requirement into the Indiana Code. Moreover, while the Respondent’s representative
did not address the remaining acre planted with trees, the Board notes that
planting and harvesting trees is a recognized agricultural activity. See GUIDELINES,
Glossary, p.1 (defining agricultural use as the “production of … timber”). The
Petitioner’s evidence shows that the Petitioner purchased and planted hundreds
of trees on the property starting in 2006. See Petitioner Exhibits 8 and 10.
The Petitioner’s pictures show trees planted in rows, like a nursery, and
the Petitioner’s “Master Plan” specifically calls for starting a nursery,
planting Christmas trees and harvesting mature trees as recommended by
foresters. Petitioner Exhibit 6. Thus, the Board finds that the
Petitioner raised a prima facie case that her property should be assessed as
agricultural land for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 assessment years.
Once the Petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the burden
shifts to the Respondent to rebut the Petitioner’s evidence. See American
United Life Insurance Co. v. Maley, 803 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004).
Here, the Respondent’s representative argues that the property was correctly
assessed based on its market value or sales price. However, because of the
special rules related to the assessment of agricultural land, the Board finds
that such argument – even if supported by probative evidence – does not rebut a
finding that the property is agricultural land.
Agricultural land is valued based on the productive capacity
of the land, regardless of the land’s potential highest and best use. GUIDELINES,
ch. 2 at 99. The Indiana General Assembly directed the Department of Local
Government Finance (DLGF) to establish rules for determining the true tax value
of agricultural land. Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-13(b). The DLGF, in turn,
established a base rate to be used in assessing agricultural land across the
State of Indiana. GUIDELINES, ch. 2 at 98-99. The Guidelines direct assessors
to adjust the base rate using soil productivity factors developed from soil
maps published by the United States Department of Agriculture. Id. at
105-106. The Guidelines further require assessors to classify agricultural
land-use types, some of which call for the application of negative influence
factors in pre-determined amounts. Id. at 102-05.
...
The statewide agricultural land base rate value was $1,200 per
acre in 2008; $1,250 per acre in 2009; and $1,290 per acre in 2010, based on a
six-year rolling average of market value-in-use as calculated by the DLGF
pursuant to 50 IAC 21-6-1(a). The sale price of the property or the market
value-in-use of the property based on comparable sales does not change this
value. Therefore the Board finds that the Respondent failed to rebut or impeach
the Petitioner’s case.
