Pat Quinn, Governor
|
|
|
||
|
Pat Quinn, Governor |
|||
|
|
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD SYNOPSIS OF REPRESENTATIVE CASES FARM DECISIONS
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD Section 16-190 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/16-190, Illinois Compiled Statutes) Official Rules - Section 1910.76 Printed by Authority of the State of Illinois www.state.il.us/agency/ptab FARM CHAPTERTable of Contents
The subject property consists of a six acre parcel located in Boone County, Illinois. It is improved with a residence, three large fenced paddocks with run out shelters, an eight stall barn and a large indoor arena. The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming the subject tract should be classified and assessed based on agricultural use. The appellant testified he purchased the subject in August of 1998 for $283,000. Prior to the purchase the subject had been part of a larger grain and livestock operation. The appellant argued the property was used as a farm both prior to and after the purchase with no break in farming use. The appellant testified he breeds and raises harness racing horses and the day of the sale he brought his stock to the subject property. He testified there were a total of seven horses, two of which were brood mares on the subject as of January 1, 1999. He argued the assessor changed the classification of the property from farm to residential when the subject was split and sold from the larger grain and livestock farm. He argued the change from one agricultural use to another agricultural use should not change the classification from farming to residential. Although the property was divided and the operation was reduced, a recognized agricultural use has continually taken place on the property for years. He also stated the assessor believes the use of the property is agricultural because he told the appellant the board would consider changing the status of the subject back to agricultural use after two years of operation raising and breeding horses. To further support his claim, the appellant presented documentation which included a photograph showing a horse and one of the buildings; a schedule F income tax Profit or Loss From Farming Statement for the subject; a copy of the appellant's harness license indicating he is a driver, trainer and owner licensed by the Illinois Racing Board; a copy of the appellant's United States Trotting Association membership card; certificates of registration for two of his horses; a track wagering card listing one of his horses; a Chicago Area Racing year-end statement for the appellant indicating one of his horses placed in three races in November of 1999; and three veterinarian bills, dated August and December of 1999. The veterinarian bills and the racing statement indicate the appellant's address at the time was the subject property. The board of review submitted "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject's assessment of $87,737 was disclosed. The assessment reflects an estimated value of $259,194 using the three year median level of assessments for Boone County for 1999 of 33.85%. The board of review agreed the subject was part of a larger farming operation prior to the appellant's 1998 purchase. However, it was the board's contention once the original parcel was split and a different type of farming operation started, the two years of farming required under 35 ILCS 200/10-110 for an agricultural assessment must start all over. The board of review also argued section 10-110 does not address the issue of carry-over from one farming use to another farming use. The board indicated the subject's Real Estate Transfer Declaration states the subject is a residential property. The board of review also submitted the subject's declaration sheet; warrantee deed; property record card; and photographs of the subject dwelling and farm buildings. The building photographs include four horses and indicate they were taken in 1999. The board argued the appellant has shown he owns, cares for and feeds horses on the subject, however, it argued there is no indication this took place until after January 1, 1999. The board of review therefore argued since there was a break in the chain of farming activity, the subject should not be eligible for an agricultural assessment until 2001. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the record, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Board finds that the subject property is entitled to a farmland classification and assessment. Section 1-60 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/1-60) defines "farm" in part as "any property used solely for the growing and harvesting of crops; for the feeding, breeding and management of livestock; for dairying or for any other agricultural or horticultural use or combination thereof; including, but not limited to hay, grain, fruit, truck or vegetable crops, floriculture, mushroom growing, plant or tree nurseries, orchards, forestry, sod farming and greenhouses; the keeping, raising and feeding of livestock or poultry, including dairying, poultry, swine, sheep, beef cattle, ponies or horses, fur farming, bees, fish and wildlife farming..." To qualify for an agricultural assessment, the land must be farmed at least two years preceding the date of assessment. (35 ILCS 200/10-110). Testimony revealed that the subject property has been used as a portion of a larger grain and livestock farm for years. The appellant also indicated once he purchased the subject property he immediately moved his breeding and racing stock and equipment to the subject. Thus, the testimony presented by the appellant indicated the subject has been used for agricultural purposes for two years preceding the assessment date. Although the subject is now used for a different type of farming operation, it has been continuously used as a farm. The board of review indicated the assessor saw no farming activity as of January 1, 1999, however, the assessor was not present at the hearing to testify; the assessor's only photographs show horses on the property; and the appellant testified he started farming the subject immediately after his purchase from the larger farming operation. Therefore, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that the subject property is entitled to a farmland classification and hereby orders the Boone County Board of Review to compute a farmland assessment for the subject parcel. The agricultural assessment is to be certified to the Board within 15 days of the date of this decision.
The subject property consists of two parcels totaling 119.7 acres of farmland located in Massac County, Illinois. The appellant submitted evidence before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming 59 acres of the subject parcels should be classified and assessed as pasture ground, not tillable cropland. The appellant did not contest the types of soils or their productivity indices. In support of his argument, the appellant presented photographs of the subject’s land, an aerial soil survey map, an aerial slope map, an aerial soil capability map, and a letter from a United States Department of Agriculture Soil Technician and Conservationist. The letter describes two distinct features regarding the subject parcels. First, the letter indicates 59 acres of the subject parcels are not recommenced for cropland. The soil types contained in these fields have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants and require special conservation practices. More importantly, the letter indicates the slope of this acreage is too steep and short, making the land unsuitable for row cropping. The letter further indicates the acreage under contention would need to be improved with "wascobs" or terraces to control the water drainage in order to be cropped. The appellant also submitted a letter indicating the 59 acres has been used for pasture ground for over 50 years. Photographs of the subject acreage were submitted depicting the parcels’ steep slope and cattle grazing. Based on this evidence, the appellant requested the 59 acres of the subject parcels be reclassified as permanent pasture. The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject parcels’ farmland assessments totaling $6,590 were disclosed. In support of the subject properties’ farmland assessments, the board of review submitted the subjects’ property record cards, an aerial map of the subject, and farmland assessment guidelines detailed in the Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual. The property record cards indicate the subject parcels contain 70.5 acres of tillable cropland; 8.0 acres of pasture ground; 40.2 acres of other farmland; and 1.0 acre of roadway. Based on this evidence, the board of review requested confirmation of the subject parcels’ farmland assessments. After reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Board further finds 59 acres of the subject parcels are entitled to a permanent pasture classification and assessment. First, the Board takes judicial notice of the subjects’ prior appeals under Property Tax Appeal Board Docket Numbers 97-3463-F-1 and 97-3464-F-1. In that appeal, the Board found the board of review properly assessed the subject properties as promulgated by the Department of Revenue guidelines. The appellant failed to provide supporting evidence that the contested acreage must be substantially improved in order to be cropped. As a result, the Board found that although the subject acreage has been used for pasture for over 50 years, its use does not overcome the fact the acreage can be cropped without improvements to the land. Moreover, there was no substantive documentation submitted by the appellant in support of his argument. The Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual defines permanent pasture as any pastureland except woodland pastureland and pasture qualifying under the Bureau of Census’ cropland definition which includes rotational pasture and grazing land that could have been used for crops without additional improvements (emphasis added). In the instant appeal, the Board finds the appellant submitted documented evidence demonstrating the subject acreage is not recommended for cropland, unless the acreage is improved with terraces or "wascobs" to control water flow. The board of review did not refute this evidence. As a result, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds the 59 acres in question are entitled to a permanent pasture classification and assessment. Section 10-125(b) of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/10-125(b)) states farmland used as pasture ground shall be assessed at 1/3 of its debased productivity index equalized assessed value as cropland. Based on the evidence in the record, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds a reduction is warranted.
The subject property consists of two, newly constructed, 40’ x 240’, swine finishing buildings located in Brown County, Illinois. The buildings have complete feeding systems and eight-foot deep manure pits under each structure. The original cost of construction was estimated to be $310,000 for each confinement facility including $90,000 for the pollution control improvements for each building. The appellant appeared before the Board claiming overvaluation of the subject buildings as the basis of the appeal. No argument was made by the appellant with respect to the land value or classification of any components contained in the subject buildings. In support of the overvaluation argument, the appellant presented a market analysis performed by an independent tax consultant. The consultant was present at the proceeding and explained his education and experience in the swine confinement industry. He stated that he has a designation of Certified Agricultural Consultant from the American Society of Agricultural Consultants. He noted that he has worked with a majority of the owners of swine confinement operations located in Brown County and many of the owners of swine confinement facilities located in surrounding counties since 1976. With respect to the valuation of the subject buildings, the witness stated that actual construction cost was not a good indicator of value for special purpose buildings like the subject facilities. He contends that swine confinement buildings have no alternative use. Furthermore, he argued that due to changing technology in hog production procedures and the current environmental waste regulations in effect, the marketability of specialized structures like the subject property is limited. To estimate the value of the subject buildings, the witness presented sales data consisting of four swine confinement facilities located in the surrounding area. These four properties sold from August 1994 to October 1997 for prices ranging between $115,000 and $295,000 including land and other ancillary buildings. Descriptive data for each property was presented and addressed. The witness stated that he estimated land values and the value of ancillary building improvements for each of the sales comparables. These estimates were based on personal records, discussions with swine production operators and area farmers. After deducting his estimates of value for land and ancillary buildings for each sale, the residual value of the confinement buildings located on each property was determined. This analysis resulted in the four sales having swine confinement building values ranging from $1.66 to $4.38 per square foot of area. A grid was prepared showing adjustments for differences in square feet, condition, time of sale and location to the subject property. These adjustments resulted in an estimated value range of between $10.88 and $11.16 per square foot for the confinement buildings located on the comparable sales. The witness noted that the appellant’s confinement buildings assessment of $133,320 reflects a market value of $20.83 per square foot of area. On the basis of the sales comparisons, the appellant’s witness felt that the subject confinement buildings had a market value of $11.05 per square foot of area. The appellant further argued that the subject buildings are valued higher than comparable swine confinement properties located in surrounding counties. Valuation and assessment data on properties located in Pike, Schuyler, Dekalb and Fulton Counties were submitted for review. The information submitted on these properties indicated valuations ranging between $12.76 and $14.49 per square foot of building area for swine confinement facilities similar to the subject property. Again, the appellant pointed out that the subject buildings are valued at $20.80 per square foot, which is excessive in comparison. Under cross-examination, the appellant’s witness explained his cost adjustment methodologies and data analyzed to arrive at his estimates. In rebuttal, the board of review pointed out that the subject buildings were constructed in 1996 for an estimated cost of $310,000 for each building. The comparable sales analyzed by the appellant’s tax consultant are much older and smaller requiring extensive adjustments for comparison to the subject buildings. Thus, the board contends the final conclusion of value developed by the appellant’s tax consultant of $11.05 per square foot is too low based on the age and condition of the subject buildings. The board of review presented its "Board of Review Notes on Appeals" wherein the final assessment of the subject property including land of $179,475 was disclosed. The supervisor of assessments testified that the board of review’s final assessment of the subject buildings of $133,320 was based on construction cost data contained in the 1994 Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual. This analysis resulted in a valuation of $20.80 per square foot of building area for the subject confinement buildings. Upon reviewing the 1998 Components and Cost Schedules of the Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual the board concluded the per square foot value of the confinement buildings should be reduced to $15.20 per square foot of building area. The supervisor of assessments testified that this value is further supported by valuations of similar newer swine confinement facilities located in surrounding counties. In rebuttal, the appellant reasserted that construction cost does not reflect market value of special use properties like swine confinement facilities. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the record, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Board further finds the evidence in the record supports a reduction in the building assessment of the subject property. The appellant argued overvaluation of the swine confinement buildings. In support of that claim, a comparative market analysis performed by a tax consultant was submitted estimating the market value of the subject buildings. The market sales consisted of one swine confinement facility in Brown County and three located in surrounding counties. After considering adjustments, a value of $11.05 per square foot of building area was concluded by the appellant’s tax consultant for the subject buildings. The appellant also submitted valuation data on four similar confinement facilities located in surrounding counties. The information presented indicated that these properties had valuations ranging between $12.00 and $14.49 per square foot of building area. The appellant contends one of the properties is almost identical to the subject buildings and is valued at $13.28 per square foot. The board of review claimed that all four of the suggested sales comparables analyzed by the appellant’s witness were much older and smaller than the subject buildings resulting in numerous adjustments. Thus, the board contends, the per square foot value of $11.05 per square foot concluded by the appellant’s market analysis is not reflective of the subject’s age and superior condition. However, upon reviewing updated cost data contained in the 1998 Components and Cost Schedules of the Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual, the board of review concluded the subject buildings were overvalued and requested a reduction in valuation from $20.80 to $15.20 per square foot of building area. The Board finds the market analysis offered by the appellant estimating the value of the subject buildings of $11.05 per square foot lacks substantive documentation of the value adjustments for differences between the sales and the subject property. Furthermore, the Board finds the sales comparables to be much older and in poorer condition than the subject buildings which are only two years old. In fact, the appellant’s witness stated in his report that some of the confinement buildings that sold would need “extensive remodeling”. Based on a review of the appellant’s sales data and descriptive information, the Board finds the properties analyzed do not truly reflect the subject buildings in age, condition and overall utility. Thus, the Board finds the estimate of value concluded by the market analysis of $11.05 per square foot of building area is too low. The Board further finds that actual cost of construction does not necessarily reflect the market value of the subject buildings. The Board recognizes the fact that the subject buildings are for special purpose use and do have a limited market appeal. However, due to the lack of substantive market sales of newly constructed comparable swine confinement facilities in the record and considering the subject buildings are only two years old, the Board finds the cost of construction to be an acceptable method of estimating value for assessment purposes. Thus, the Board finds the board of review’s use of the buildings’ estimated reproduction cost new of $15.20 per square foot, as a basis of market value is acceptable. However, the board of review’s cost analysis did not consider any depreciation of the subject buildings. Upon consulting the 1998 Components and Cost Schedules of the Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual, a depreciation factor of 10% was indicated for a two-year-old confinement facility like the subject buildings. This calculation results in a value of $13.68 per square foot for the subject buildings. Furthermore, the Board finds this value falls within the valuation of the most similar swine confinement facilities contained in the record. On the basis of the evidence and the foregoing analysis, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that a reduction of the subject property’s building assessed valuation and final assessment is warranted.
The subject properties consist of ten parcels ranging in size from 4.95 acres to 18 acres located in Harlem Township, Winnebago County, Illinois. The record in these appeals contains evidence submitted by the appellant suggesting the subject properties are improperly classified by the board of review as commercial property. The appellant argued the subject parcels should be classified as agricultural property. The appellant explained each parcel has been farmed for at least the previous two years with most having been farmed for many years. The appellant purchased the parcels for placement of towers for high tension power lines; however, the parcels are all licensed to farmers to grow crops. The licenses state the properties are to be used for "cultivating crops thereon and/or for pasture, and for no other purpose whatsoever". The licenses for each property were submitted as evidence along with orthophoto aerial maps. In further support of its classification claim, the appellant submitted a memorandum from the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR) Office of Public Service Administration, dated November 7, 1990 to all supervisors of assessments. The memorandum indicated that although a non-residential parcel may be classified as industrial, if a tract within that parcel meets the definition of a farm, that tract would be assessed as farmland. A letter from the Assessment Administration Section of the IDOR, dated September 24, 1996, to the appellant’s tax agent was also submitted. The letter stated that if the appellant’s property had current farmland leases; had visible row crops from an aerial photograph; met the requirements for a farmland assessment; and was field checked for accuracy, it would qualify for a farmland assessment. Another letter from the IDOR Assessment Administration Section, dated October 14, 1996, to the appellant’s tax agent addressed the issue of electric high lines and towers. The letter indicated the appellant’s towers were located 600 feet apart and the land is farmed up to the base of the towers. The letter indicated the primary use of the parcel does not have to be agricultural in order for the farmed portion to be assessed as farming. The presence of towers and power lines does not disqualify the farmed property from receiving a farmland assessment. In further support, the appellant argued inequity in the assessment process. The appellant indicated it maintains many right of way easements over other farms in the county for its towers and electric high power lines. The owners of these parcels farm to the base of the towers that are situated 600 feet apart. All of these farm parcels with easements for the appellant’s electric high power lines are assessed as farmland and the rights of way are not classified or assessed as non-farmland. The board of review submitted "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject's assessment was disclosed. For each subject parcel, the board of review submitted a letter, dated November 5, 1999, from the Harlem Township Assessor. Aside from estimating a value for each parcel, the letters were identical. In the letter, the assessor argued the appellant’s sole purpose for the subject properties is for commercial use. She argued the intention of the appellant when purchasing these parcels was to construct towers and run electric lines to provide service for its customers. Since the sale of electricity is the intended and primary use of the parcels, the subject is being used as a commercial business and therefore should not be classified and assessed as farmland. The board of review also submitted identical sets of evidence for each subject parcel. The board argued the primary use of the subject parcels is a power line corridor for a regulated public utility. As such, the board argued the method for valuation of a public utility property is original cost less depreciation. The board of review claimed this method has been affirmed by the Illinois Department of Revenue (IDOR), Illinois case law and the Property Tax Appeal Board. However, since this is land with no buildings owned by a public utility and since land does not depreciate, the board claimed the original cost of the land would be the value of the parcels. The board also argued even though the subject land is being farmed it does not qualify for a farmland assessment because it is in fact owned by a regulated public utility. The board claimed the Third District Appellate Court in Commonwealth Edison v. Property Tax Appeal Board, 124 Ill.App.3d 228 (3d. Dist. 1984), found the reasonable approach to value property of a regulated utility is based on historic cost and not market value because these properties are not commonly bought or sold on the open market. The board of review argued the Property Tax Appeal Board has also adopted this method of valuing utility properties and cited the following three decisions: Commonwealth Edison Company, 79-4314-I-2 through 79-4316-I-2; Illinois Power Company, 83-2995-I-2, 84-1157-I-2 and 85-464-I-3; and Northern Illinois Gas Company, 95-3536-I-3 through 95-3557-I-3. The board of review submitted two letters from IDOR Office of Appraisals, dated December 1, 1995 and May 8, 1998, which stated the original cost less allowed depreciation is used in determining the value of regulated utility property. The Property Tax Appeal Board decisions mentioned above were also noted as support for this determination. A copy of Section 9-210 of the Public Utilities Act was also submitted. (215 ILCS 5/9-210). This section of the Illinois Compiled Statutes discusses valuation of public utilities for ratemaking purposes. Following its proposed method of valuing the subject property using historic costs for the land owned by public utilities, the board of review submitted three sales, two of which were purchased by the appellant. These three properties contain from .75 acre to 5.66 acres and sold from 1970 to 1991 for prices ranging from $.13 to $.67 per square foot. Copies of property record cards and sales documents were included. Based on this evidence, the board of review requested confirmation of the assessments of the subject properties. After reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Board also finds the facts in these appeals are not in dispute. The subject parcels contain towers with electric high lines running over the property. All the parcels are being farmed and have farmland leases that have been in effect for more than two years preceding the assessment date at issue. The Board finds that the subject properties are entitled to farmland classifications and assessments. Section 1-60 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/1-60) defines "farm" in part as "any property used solely for the growing and harvesting of crops; for the feeding, breeding and management of livestock; for dairying or for any other agricultural or horticultural use or combination thereof; including, but not limited to hay, grain, fruit, truck or vegetable crops, floriculture, mushroom growing, plant or tree nurseries, orchards, forestry, sod farming and greenhouses; the keeping, raising and feeding of livestock or poultry, including dairying, poultry, swine, sheep, beef cattle, ponies or horses, fur farming, bees, fish and wildlife farming..." In Santa Fe Land Improvement Company v. Property Tax Appeal Board, the court concluded "the present use of the land determines whether it receives an agricultural or nonagricultural valuation." 13 Ill.App.3d 872 (3d Dist. 1983). To qualify for an agricultural assessment, the land must be farmed at least two years preceding the date of assessment. (35 ILCS 200/10-110). Evidence revealed that the subject properties have been used for farming purposes for many years. The board of review did not refute this evidence and indicated the subject properties were being farmed. Thus, the evidence presented indicated the subject properties qualify for agricultural assessments. The evidence further revealed that the Illinois Department of Revenue’s Assessment Administration Division would advise that the subject parcels were in compliance with the definition and requirements to receive a farmland assessment. It further indicated the presence of electric high lines and towers on the property would not disqualify the property from receiving a farmland assessment. These IDOR opinions were supported by statute and the Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual. Although only advisory in nature, the Board finds these IDOR opinions review actual facts found in these appeals, are better supported than the board of review’s advisory opinions and result in the correct conclusions. The board of review maintained that because the subject is owned by a regulated public utility, the property must be assessed as commercial property. It also claimed original historic costs minus allowable depreciation must be the method employed in finding values for these properties. The board too offered letters of opinion from the IDOR. These opinions came from the Office of Appraisals in the Local Government Services Division. However, these opinions only addressed valuing regulated utility property in general terms. The letters mentioned three Property Tax Appeal Board decisions as support. However, the decisions cited refer to market value determinations of the utility properties and not to land classification. Properties meeting the requirements of farmland are assessed not by market value of the land but rather by productivity of the land. The first Property Tax Appeal Board decision cited in the letter was Commonwealth Edison Company, 79-4314-I-2 through 79-4316-I-2, which, after remand, was affirmed by the Third District Appellate Court. The subject matter of this decision was the proper valuation of two regulated generating facilities. The decision stated the proper method of determining the fair market value of a regulated facility is historic costs less depreciation. Classification of the land was not at issue. However, there were numerous right of ways appealed along with the facility proper. (See Commonwealth Edison, 79-4319-I-2 through 79-4341-I-2). The Board found the proper assessment for each of these parcels based on appraisals submitted by the appellant. The board of review submitted no evidence for these right of way parcels. The Illinois Power Co. and Northern Illinois Gas Company decisions also did not address the issue of land classification. The Board finds the advisory opinions from the IDOR’s Department of Local Government Services, Office of Appraisals speak generally to the determination of a market valuation method for regulated public utilities. As such, they are not inconsistent with the decisions cited within the opinions. However, classification of land that is being farmed was not at issue in any of these appeals. The appellant also claimed the subject properties were inequitably assessed. The appellant indicated its towers and electric high lines are located not only on the subject properties but on many other farms. All of the easements for these towers and electric high lines on properties not owned by the appellant were given farmland assessments. The only properties with farming activity, towers and electric high lines receiving non-farmland assessments are the subject parcels owned by the appellant. The Board finds the subject properties are assessed by virtue of ownership rather than by statutory determinations. The Board also finds the board of review submitted no additional evidence to refute or disprove the unequal treatment claims. The Property Tax Appeal Board therefore finds the subject properties are entitled to farmland classifications and assessments. The Board further finds the record supports the appellant’s claim the subject properties are inequitably assessed since similarly situated parcels are being classified and assessed as farmland while the subject parcels are not. Therefore, the Property Tax Appeal Board orders the Winnebago County Board of Review to compute farmland assessments for the subject parcels. The agricultural assessments are to be certified to the Board within 15 days of the date of this decision.
The subject property consists of three parcels located in Calhoun County. Parcel #07-16-01-200-002 contains 119 acres and is improved with a one acre home site and residence. Parcel #07-17-06-100-001 contains 57 acres and parcel 07-17-06-100-001-1 contains 38 acres. All three parcels have been subdivided for residential development. However, none of the subdivided lots were sold as of January 1, 1999. The acreage continued to be used for agricultural purposes with the growing and harvesting of crops. The appellant is not contesting the assessments placed on the home site and residence located on parcel #07-16-01-200-002. The appellant and counsel appeared before the Board and explained that the bases for the assessment complaints were that the assessments of the subject parcels were increased without the required notice of change having been given to the taxpayer and the increases result in the overvaluation of the land. The appellant contends that in 1998, the parcels’ land assessments were based on agricultural use with the assessments of the parcels published in the local newspaper. The appellant did not contest these assessments. However, in the fall of 1998, these parcels were reassessed by the board of review to reflect the market value of rural vacant land in the area even though the parcels continued to be farmed. The appellant complained informally to the board of review but the parcels’ assessments were not changed to reflect their original assessments. In 1999, the parcels’ assessments were again calculated by the board of review to reflect the market value of vacant rural land in the area. The appellant, by counsel, appealed the findings on all three parcels in September 1999. Counsel for the taxpayer was listed on the complaint forms as the party to be given notice of hearings. On January 5, 2000, counsel for the taxpayer wrote to the board of review inquiring regarding the status of the hearing on the assessment complaints. Despite the foregoing correspondence from counsel as the party to receive hearing notices, the board of review issued a notice of hearing directed to the owner and not to legal counsel on or about January 10, 2000 for a hearing to be held on January 21, 2000. Because the taxpayer was out of the United States when the notice arrived, neither the owner nor counsel for the owner had actual notice of the hearing scheduled and did not attend the hearing. On January 31, 2000, counsel for the appellant wrote the Clerk of the Calhoun County Board of Review advising the board of review of the foregoing facts and requested a hearing be rescheduled. No notice of a rescheduled hearing was received nor was there a formal decision issued by the board of review regarding the assessment complaints. Since there was no knowledge of a formal decision being issued, accordingly, the appellant filed an appeal with the Property Tax Appeal Board within the thirty days of the scheduled hearing before the board of review to protect and preserve the taxpayer’s right of review by the Property Tax Appeal Board of whatever action may have been taken by the board of review at its January 21, 2000 meeting. In addition, counsel for the appellant pointed out that Section 16-610 of the Property Tax Code requires that at least 30 days notice be given of the board of review hearing. This did not occur here as shown by the notice, which was dated January 10, 2000 for a hearing to be held on January 21, 2000. Thus, the taxpayer requests that the Property Tax Appeal Board reverse any decision rendered by the Calhoun County Board of Review as failing to comply with the requirements of the Property Tax Code and for the grounds of overvaluation originally set forth in the assessment complaint. Copies of all correspondence and notices attested to were submitted for review. The Supervisor of Assessments explained that the reason no notice of assessment change was issued to the taxpayer was due to new management not being familiar with office practices. The board of review submitted its “Notes on Appeal” wherein the subject parcels’ final 1999 assessments were disclosed. The Supervisor of Assessments explained that the subject parcels were assessed according to Section 200/10-30 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/10-30). Based thereon, the Supervisor of Assessments found comparable sales of vacant land within the county to estimate a fair market value per acre to be applied to the subject properties. The board of review did not submit any evidence to refute the appellant’s claim that the parcels were being utilized for agricultural purposes the preceding years and during the assessment year in question. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the evidence submitted into the record, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the appeal. The Board further finds the appellant has supported the argument of overvaluation of the subject parcels. Evidence offered by the appellant indicates the subdivided areas of the subject parcels were being used for agricultural purposes prior to and during the 1999 assessment year. Section 10-30(a) of the Property Tax Code states: In counties with less than 3,000,000 inhabitants, the platting and subdivision of property into separate lots and the development of the subdivided property with streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters sewer, water and utility lines shall not increase the assessed valuation of all or any part of the property, if: (1) The property is platted and subdivided in accordance with the Plat Act; (2) The platting occurs after January 1, 1978; (3) At the time of platting the property is in excess of 10 acres; and (4) At the time of platting the property is vacant or used as a farm as defined in Section 1-60. The appellant presented evidence to show the subject parcels were farmed before they were subdivided and were also farmed after being subdivided. The board of review did not present any evidence to refute this claim. Thus, the Board finds the subject parcels meet the guideline set forth in the Property Tax Code (35 ICLS 200/10-30) and qualify for agricultural assessments. Therefore, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds acreage of the subject parcels utilized for farming are entitled to an agricultural classification and hereby orders the Calhoun County Board of Review to compute farmland assessments for the acres utilized as such. The agricultural assessments are to be certified to the Board within 15 days of the date of this decision.
The subject property consists of a 60.8-acre parcel located in Fulton County, Illinois. The appellant contends the board of review erroneously reclassified the subject tract subsequent to the appellant’s purchase of the land in 1999. Prior to the appellant’s purchase of the subject tract, the land was part of a larger 112.1-acre tract which received an agricultural assessment. Following the purchase of the subject tract by the appellant, the board of review changed the subject’s assessment from a farmland or agricultural assessment to a rural land or recreational land classification. The subject’s property record card was submitted into the record showing the subject tract’s prior assessment and the revised property record card was also offered detailing the new assessment. In support of its argument, the appellant submitted aerial photographs and assessments on four suggested comparable tracts. The appellant, however, failed to offer the property record cards or any descriptions for these properties. In conclusion, the appellant stated that he intended to farm the subject property in the year 2000. Based on the evidence contained in the record, the appellant requested the Board reinstate the subject’s agricultural assessment. The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject property’s total assessment of $6,020 was disclosed. In support of its assessment, the board of review provided the property record cards and assessments for the appellant’s comparable properties. The property record cards indicated that all of the appellant’s comparables were used for some kind of agricultural purpose and therefore, received agricultural assessments. The board of review also offered evidence of seven suggested comparables that were recently sold and given the recreational land assessments. Based on the evidence contained in the record, the board of review requested confirmation of the subject property’s total assessment. After reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Property Tax Appeal Board further finds that no reduction is warranted. The Property Tax Appeal Board finds the appellant failed to demonstrate the subject property should have an agricultural assessment. Section 1-60 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/1-60) defines "farm" in part as: any property used solely for the growing and harvesting of crops; for the feeding, breeding and management of livestock; for dairying or for any other agricultural or horticultural use or combination thereof; including, but not limited to hay, grain, fruit, truck or vegetable crops, floriculture, mushroom growing, plant or tree nurseries, orchards, forestry, sod farming and greenhouses; the keeping, raising and feeding of livestock or poultry, including dairying, poultry, swine, sheep, beef cattle, ponies or horses, fur farming, bees, fish and wildlife farming... Here, the appellant failed to provide documentation showing the subject parcel was being used for agricultural purposes. In order to qualify for an agricultural assessment, the land must be used as a farm at least two years preceding the date of assessment. (35 ILCS 200/10-110). Again, the appellant failed to offer any evidence showing the subject parcel had been farmed during the 1997, 1998 or 1999 assessment year. In contrast, the board of review submitted sufficient information detailing its assessment of the subject property as recreational land. The board of review also provided documentation of comparable properties that are also receiving the $140 per acre recreational land assessment. Therefore, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds the subject property’s assessment as established by the board of review is correct and no reduction is warranted.
The subject property consists of a 160-acre tract of farmland with no buildings. The subject property is located in rural Piatt County, Illinois. The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board and argued the subject's assessment on the farmland was excessive due to several factors. He claimed that grain prices today are about the same as they were in 1952; that he pays from $2,000 to $4,000 per year to maintain the Trinkle Slough Ditch, which runs 20 feet into the subject property; and that he has to pay to maintain an additional one and one-third miles of drainage ditch. He was of the opinion that he has higher costs than others for drainage ditch expenses. Another reason for a reduction in the subject's assessment claimed by the appellant was a lower cash rent agreement between himself and the tenant farmer. The board of review submitted "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject's assessment of $54,496 was disclosed. The supervisor of assessments was present and noted that there was no contention with respect to the soil use classifications. The appellant's indication of the number of cropland acres was 134.5 and coincided with the subject's property record card. The same was true with respect to the woodland and the wasteland acreage at 22.85 and 2.70 respectively. The supervisor of assessments testified to the procedures of farmland assessment implementation in the county. He stated the subject's soil types and acreage measurements were calculated from the county's soil survey, which was completed in 1985. He testified that the formula for assessing farmland as promulgated by the Department of Revenue was followed throughout the county. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the record, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Board further finds that the evidence presented in the record does not support a reduction in the subject's farmland assessment. The farmland assessment law requires that farmland be assessed according to its productivity. Guidelines promulgated by the Department of Revenue indicate that productivity indices should be established through the use of soil maps and tables indicating each soil’s productivity for average level management. In this appeal testimony presented by the board suggests that it followed this methodology not only for the subject parcel; but for each parcel throughout the county. The appellant presented no documented evidence to call into question either the typing of the soils or the classification of the land of the subject property. The appellant claimed that due to the grain prices, the drainage ditch expense and the lower cash rent agreement, the subject property was excessively assessed. The Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual describes the capitalization formula for farmland assessments: "Net income is to be the basis for the assessment placed on farmland. Five-year net income is calculated for cropland of each productivity index (PI) by subtracting five-year non-land production costs from five-year average gross income. The net income per acre is then capitalized by the five-year Federal Land Bank mortgage interest rate to produce the agricultural economic value of cropland. The equalized assessed value of cropland for each PI is then determined by multiplying the agricultural economic value by the statutory assessment level of 33 1/3 percent." The manual described the Department of Revenue Annual Certifications: "The Department of Revenue is responsible for calculating, annually, the soil productivity index use-value figures required by the Farmland Assessment Law and for certifying those values to the counties. Included in this certification is per acre data by productivity index on the gross income, non-land production costs, net income, agricultural economic value, and the equalized assessed value. The Department also certified per acre proposed county average assessed valuations for cropland for all farmland. These averages are based on individual county soil and land use information." Accordingly, the formula does not allow for adjustments in the individual yields earned on a tract of land and the Property Tax Appeal Board is without authority to change the certified equalized assessed value per acre by productivity index. Thus, based on this data, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds the subject’s assessment as established by the board of review is correct and no reduction is warranted.
The subject property consists of a 124-acre site improved with a residential dwelling and numerous farm improvements. The subject of the appeal, however, concerns only the board of review’s assessment of an 80 x 240 or 19,200 square foot hog finishing building that was constructed in 1998. The appellant argued the board of review’s assessment for the subject farm improvement is not reflective of its true market value. In support of this contention, the appellant provided the bid or offer sheet from the construction company which built the subject improvement. The original offer or bid was for two, 80 x 240 double wide finishing units. The bid outlined the costs for both the materials and labor/installation. For example, the cost for one building totaled $336,400 or ($167,380 - for the materials and $169,020 - for the labor/installation). The appellant requested an assessment of $51,720 or a full value of $155,175 for the subject building. Based on the evidence contained in the record, the appellant requested a reduction in the assessment for the subject property. The board of review submitted its “Board of Review Notes on Appeals,” wherein the subject property’s total assessment of $101,300 was disclosed. The subject farm improvement, which is the subject of the appeal, has an indicated market value of $240,000 as reflected by the board of review’s assessment. In support of its assessment, the board of review provided an Illinois Department of Revenue memorandum explaining the difference between real and personal property and selected provisions of the Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual. The board of review argued that hog and swine confinement equipment was classified as real property in Adams County prior to January 1, 1979, and continues to be classified as real property to the current assessment date. The board of review further explained that it considered both the labor and material costs in its evaluation of the subject improvement’s full value. Based on the evidence contained in the record, the board of review requested confirmation of the subject property’s total assessment. After reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Property Tax Appeal Board further finds that no reduction is warranted. The appellant offered a bid or offer sheet from the construction company which built the subject improvement. The original offer or bid was for two, 80 x 240 double wide finishing units. The bid outlined the costs for both the materials and labor/installation. For example, the cost for one building totaled $336,400 or ($167,380 - for the materials and $169,020 - for the labor/installation). The board of review also argued that hog and swine confinement equipment was classified as real property in Adams County prior to January 1, 1979, and continues to be classified as real property to the current assessment date. The board of review further explained that it considered both the labor and material costs in its evaluation of the subject improvement’s full value. The Property Tax Appeal Board finds the appellant has failed to establish overvaluation. The subject farm improvement, which is the subject of the appeal, has an indicated market value of $240,000 as reflected by the board of review’s assessment. The Board finds that the board of review’s assessment of the subject improvement is actually less than its recent construction cost of $336,400 in 1998. Based on the evidence contained in the record, the Board finds the subject improvement’s assessment is correct and the appellant failed to produce any documentation showing that a lower value is warranted. Furthermore, the Board finds the board of review adequately established that the subject improvement was properly classified as real property. In conclusion, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds the board of review’s assessment of the subject property is correct and no reduction is warranted.
The subject property consists of a 40.26 acre tract of land located in Hamilton County, Illinois. One outbuilding is located on the subject parcel. The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming the subject does not contain a one-acre homesite as classified and assessed by the board of review. In support of this argument, the appellant presented testimony and a map of the subject tract. The appellant testified that until 1984, an old farmhouse was present on the parcel. The dwelling was subsequently razed in 1984. He testified that natural gas lines were installed in 1943 but have not been utilized since 1962. He opined the gas lines are rusted and cannot be utilized. Additionally, he testified the former homesite has an old septic system, however, it was filled with dirt when the dwelling was razed. The appellant further argued the former homesite should be valued based on its current use, not based upon its prior or possible future uses. The appellant noted the assessor previously classified and assessed the one-acre portion under appeal as other farmland and the subject parcel’s total farmland assessment was $2,795 in the 1997 assessment year. Based on this evidence, the appellant requested the one-acre portion under appeal again be classified and assessed as other farmland for the 1998 assessment year. The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject’s assessment of $3,948 was disclosed. In support of the subject property’s assessment, the board of review presented testimony and a letter outlining its methodology to classify and assess one-acre homesites in Hamilton County. The subject tract is classified and assessed as 34.17 acres a cropland, 4.59 acres of other farmland, a one-acre homesite, and .50 acres of wasteland. The Supervisor of Assessments testified that all parcels in Hamilton County were re-assessed in 1998. During the re-assessment, it was discovered that some farm parcels were assessed with one-acre homesites, although they had no primary residential dwellings. Other farm parcels were not assessed with a homesite, although a residential structure was present on site. Therefore in striving for equity throughout the county, the Supervisor of Assessments developed a two-step criteria in establishing an assessment methodology for determining whether a farm parcel contains a one acre homesite. First, farm parcels were inspected to determine whether houses or other residential structures (i.e. garages or outbuildings) were present. Second, a determination was made whether visible separation existed between the actual farmland and the area containing the residential structure or outbuilding. If a farm parcel contained a residential dwelling or other residential structure and was visibly separate from the actual farmland, a one-acre homesite was assessed to that parcel. After inspecting the subject parcel, the assessor determined the garage located on the subject parcel was a residential structure and was visibly separate from the actual farming operation. The board of review also presented photographs of three comparables supporting its aforementioned uniform homesite assessment methodology. Two comparables appear to contain an outbuilding or garage and one comparable has an old dilapidated farmhouse. All three parcels are assessed with one-acre homesites. Based on this evidence, the board of review argued the subject acre meets the aforementioned criteria establishing a one-acre homesite. The board of review therefore argued the subject's one-acre homesite is equitably assessed. In addition, the board of review argued the subject acre is a homesite because all utilities are present to enable a person to build or place a mobile home on site. The board of review also argued the subject acre may not be farmed due to the trees located on the one-acre portion. It further argued the two tractors, which are stored in the residential garage, are not used for the farming operation. Testimony revealed the tractors are expensive antiques. In further support of the subject’s assessment, the board of review presented a letter from the Supervisor of Assessments. Upon receiving notice of this subject appeal, the Supervisor of Assessments indicated he "re-measured" the subject parcel’s soil types and land uses. The letter indicates the subject parcel’s assessment was incorrectly measured and assessed. In contrast, at the hearing the Supervisor of Assessments testified he did not "re-measure" the subject parcel’s soil types and uses, but merely "re-checked" the subject parcel’s assessment for accuracy using the same soil survey map as all other farm parcels located in Hamilton County. Again, the Supervisor of Assessments testified an "operator error" was made in calculating the subject’s farmland assessment. Thus, the Supervisor of Assessments recalculated the subject’s assessment that resulted in an increase in the farmland assessment from $3,076 to $3,098, excluding the one-acre homesite. The Supervisor of Assessments also testified there could be many farmland assessment errors throughout the county, however, no other farmland assessments were re-calculated. Based on this evidence, the board of review requested the Property Tax Appeal Board to increase the subject’s farmland assessment based on the new calculations and confirm the one-acre homesite assessment placed on the subject parcel. As a final note, the board of review explained the Illinois Department of Revenue applied a 10% increase in equalized assessed value to all types of soils throughout the state in 1998. Thus, the subject’s farmland assessment increased 10% from 1997 to 1998, in addition to the increase caused by assessing the one-acre homesite. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the record, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Board further finds the subject property does not contain a one-acre homesite. The appellant argued the subject property should not be assessed for a homesite since no residential dwelling is located on the subject parcel. The board of review argued the subject should be assessed for a one-acre homesite based on its criteria in establishing one-acre homesites. The Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual defines a farm homesite "as that land on a farm parcel being used for residential purposes" (emphasis added). Additionally, the manual states a homesite will "include the lawn and land on which the residence and garage are situated" (emphasis added). The Board finds the definition from the Manual indicates a homesite must be used for residential purposes. Additionally, the Manual clearly indicates that a residence and garage will be included in the homesite. The Board finds that although the subject property has a garage used for storage, it does not contain a dwelling used for residential purposes. Moreover, testimony and evidence failed to establish that the one-acre portion of the subject under appeal is used for residential purposes, which is fundamental in establishing a homesite. Thus, the Board further finds that since the one-acre portion under appeal is part of a larger farm parcel, it should be assessed as other farmland as detailed in the Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual. As a result of this analysis, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds a reduction in the subject property’s assessment is warranted.
The subject property consists of two parcels containing a total of 60 acres. Parcel number (004) contains 20 acres and parcel number (002) contains 40 acres. 99-324-F-1 (004) The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming the assessment of the subject’s farmland should be debased because of its propensity to flood. In support of this argument, the appellant submitted a history of flooding for a ten-year period, an aerial map, and a detailed soil survey map. The appellant testified that 10 acres of the subject’s 20-acre tract is classified as cropland and the other 10 acres is classified as wasteland. He testified that during the previous ten-year period he only harvested a crop of soybeans in 1997. The appellant also testified that during the past ten years the parcel has suffered total crop loss nine years. In addition, the appellant submitted a detailed soil survey map of Fayette County created by the United States Department of Agriculture. This detailed soil survey map shows that the subject parcel is located in a creek bottom and has a soil type of 3333, which the appellant presented as “Wakeland Silt Loam, frequently floods”. The appellant requested a 30% reduction of the subject’s land assessment based on a flooding debasement. The board of review submitted its “Board of Review Notes on Appeal” wherein the parcels final assessment of $999 was disclosed. In addition, the board of review submitted a property data sheet on five suggested comparable parcels and the subject parcel. These comparable parcels ranged in size from 6.66 to 40 acre tracts and had weighted productivity indexes of 73 to 91 for cropland, pasture land, and wasteland. The board was of the opinion that the subject’s weighted productivity index was well within the range of these comparable parcels located in Fayette County. In addition, the board stated that the subject’s cropland had an actual weighted productivity index of 94 and was debased to 83. However, the board of review was unclear when this adjustment was applied to the subject property and submitted no documentation to support this statement. The board also was unable to explain its methodology of debasing the weighted productivity index in relation to the appellant’s flooding contention. The board of review noted it was unaware that the subject parcel suffered from crop loss due to flooding. Next, the board of review explained that all farmland was assessed utilizing soil association maps for Fayette County. However, the board failed to submit a soil association map in this appeal. Based on the evidence, the board of review requested confirmation of the subject property’s assessment. 99-325-F-1 (002) The appellant appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process regarding the subject’s farmland acreage. In support of this argument, the appellant submitted a detailed soil survey map, an aerial map showing the location of three comparable farmland properties. These three farmland properties had farmland assessments ranging from $3,765 to $3,847, while the subject property had an assessment of $3,971. The appellant submitted no additional documentation or data on two of three comparable properties. However, the appellant did submit a property record card on one of the three comparables. He felt these parcels were the most comparable to the subject parcel. Based on this evidence, the appellant requested a reduction in the subject property’s total assessment. The board of review presented "Board of Review Notes on Appeal" wherein the subject property’s final assessment of $3,971 was disclosed. In addition, the board of review submitted productivity index sheets, a detailed soil survey map, and a property data sheet on three suggested comparable parcels and the subject parcel. Each of these comparable parcels was a 40-acre tract and had weighted productivity indexes of 84 to 85 for cropland and wasteland. The subject parcel had weighted productivity indexes of 85 for cropland and 71 for wasteland. Based on the evidence, board of review requested confirmation of the subject’s farmland assessment. After hearing the testimony and reviewing the record, the Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over parties and the subject matter of this appeal. The Board finds that a reduction is warranted for subject parcel (004). The Board further finds that no reduction is warranted for subject parcel (002). Docket No. 99-324-F-1 The appellant contends the subject’s farmland assessment should be debased for its propensity to flood. The appellant presented a flooding history and testified at the hearing the parcel flooded and the cropland experienced a total loss nine of the previous ten years. According to the appellant’s testimony and crop history the only crop harvested during the previous ten years was soybeans in 1997. Although the board of review debased the cropland’s productivity index for flooding from 94 to 83, testimony indicated the board of review was not aware the subject suffered from crop loss due to flooding. Additionally, the board of review presented no testimony or evidence to refute the appellant’s evidence the subject suffered total crop loss nine of the previous ten years. Section 10-125 of the Property Tax Code (35 ILCS 200/10-125) delineates the manner in which cropland, permanent pasture, and other farmland are to be defined and assessed. In determining the assessment of cropland, section 10-125 states in part that: Cropland shall be assessed in accordance with the equalized assessed value of its soil productivity index as certified by the Department [of Revenue] and shall be debased to take into account factors including, but not limited to, slope, drainage, ponding, flooding, and field size.... (35 ILCS 200/10-125(a)). The Illinois Real Property Appraisal Manual published by the Department of Revenue provides that the productivity index of the immediately affected acreage only which suffers actual crop loss due to flooding should be adjusted as prescribed in Circular 1156, published by the University of Illinois, College of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service. Circular 1156 provide that “factors used to adjust productivity indexes for flooding must be based upon knowledge of the characteristics and history of the specific site. ... If the history of flooding in a valley is known to have caused three years of essentially total crop failures out of ten years, for example, the estimated yields and productivity indexes of the bottomland soils could be reduced to 70 percent....” The Board finds that based on the evidence and testimony in the record that the board of review did not adequately adjust the subject’s soil’s productivity index for the cropland to account for the total crop loss nine out of the previous ten years. Based on this evidence, the Board finds the appellant’s requested assessment reduction for this parcel is supported. Docket No. 99-325-F-1 The appellant argued the assessment on this parcel was inequitable when compared to the assessments of three similar parcels. The Board finds this argument to be without merit. The evidence discloses the subject parcel was classified and assessed as having 37 acres of cropland and 3 acres of wasteland. The Property Tax Appeal Board finds that the Property Tax Code requires farmland to be assessed according to its productivity (35 ILCS 200/10-110 through 10-140). Guidelines established by the Department of Revenue indicate the productivity indexes should be established through the use of soil maps and tables indicating each soil’s productivity for average level management. The evidence and testimony disclosed the board of review followed the guidelines in determining the subject property’s as well as the comparable’s agricultural assessments. The variation in assessments between the subject and comparable farmland parcels is caused by the different soil types and use classifications on each parcel. For these reasons the Property Tax Appeal Board finds the appellant has failed to demonstrate the subject parcel is being inequitably assessed and a reduction in this parcel’s assessment is not warranted. FARM CHAPTER SUBJECT MATTER Agricultural Classification
– Change In Agricultural Uses Agricultural
Classification – How to Value Land According to Developer's Exemption Agricultural
Classification – High Tension Wire Tower Located on Agriculturally
Assessed Land Agricultural Classification –
Removal Of Property From Agricultural Use Farmland
Debasement Farmland Debasement Grain Prices – Assessment of Agricultural Land Hog Confinement Facility – Construction Costs |
|
| Copyright © 2007 Property Tax Appeal Board | Disclaimer | Privacy Information | Kids Privacy | Web Accessibility | Agency Webmaster |
