The “developer’s discount” is based on Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-12… This statute was amended in 2006, but the intent as explained in Howser Development v. Vienna Twp. Assessor, 833 N.E.2d 1108, 1110 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005), and Aboite Corp. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 762 N.E.2d 254, 257 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001), remains the same: encouraging developers to buy farmland, subdivide it into lots, and resell the lots. The encouragement comes by providing that a land developer’s land in inventory is not to be reassessed until after title is transferred to somebody who is not a developer, or construction begins on the land, or a building permit is issued for construction on the land. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-12(h).
Agricultural land values tend to be lower. Consequently, where land previously was assessed with a lower agricultural land value, allowing it to retain that lower valuation for a longer time generally is an encouragement or benefit. Contrary to the Petitioner’s claim, however, Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-12 does not dictate agricultural land value for a property where the prior assessment was not based on agricultural land value.
The evidence that the Petitioner is a developer is undisputed. In fact, the Respondent did not contest that the Petitioner and the subject property come within the requirements specified by Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-12. The dispute is only about where that status leads for purposes of the assessed value of the subject property. According to the Petitioner, the developer’s discount in Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-12 necessarily leads to an assessed land value based on agricultural land base rates of $1,200 and $1,250 per acre. That interpretation, however, is not supported by the statutory language.
Contrary to the Petitioner’s claim, Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-12 does not dictate agricultural land value for a property where the prior assessment was not based on agricultural land values. Rather than specifying agricultural land value, subsection 12(h) provides a limitation on when qualifying land is allowed to be reassessed and, until one of the specified events happens, the prior assessment classification is maintained. Of course, if the prior assessment was based on agricultural land valuation, that would be the one to be maintained. But the Petitioner failed to prove this land had been classified or assessed as agricultural for any time that is relevant to this case.
To the contrary, the Petitioner’s representative testified that an examination of records dating back to 1995 established the property had not been assessed as agricultural land. And the Respondent presented evidence that the property had not been assessed as agricultural land going back even farther.
The Petitioner also argued that he does not receive any utility from this parcel because it produces no income. The lack of current income does not establish the Petitioner receives no utility from the parcel, which is being held for future development. The Petitioner’s conclusory argument on that point has no merit.
