|
DELEGATE CASE: They might. I do
not know what the court would hold any
more than you do, but if the property
were zoned for heavy industrial use, if the
general character of the neighborhood all
around it were built up with a factory, if
the property were in the middle of a very
densely populated area, if the property had
been — if they were on file in the county
clerk's office, a subdivision plat on the prop-
erty was already to go, the plat had been
subdivided, if the property — if this land
owner that you are referring to had never
had any contact with the property at all, all
of these things would come into play and
it would be the Court's judgment on the
sum total of all of them which would per-
mit a judgment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: As I under-
stand it, each one or any one of those items
that you have just listed could be determi-
native of the classification or the exclusion
from the classification of this particular
tract of ground?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Not determinative,
Delegate Clagett, but one of the things that
could be taken into consideration.
You see, we really are dealing here with
a somewhat esoteric concept in which there
are no answers. That is what we are trying
to drive to. In a negligence case, either
the driver is either negligent or he is not.
These are absolutes. But in the tax field
to have a finding of fact there are many
different facets to it which may be found,
and what I am saying to you is that just
as in the question of fair market value of
closely held corporate shares, there is no
one fact which is controlling; at least
that is what we are driving at: no one fact
may be controlling.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Then do I
understand you correctly that what you are
doing here in this effort as set forth in sec-
tion 8.02 is to substitute those tests for the
tests that the court has determined exist
in Article 43 of the present Constitution,
namely, being actively devoted.
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: And these ob-
jective tests would be determined by whom?
By the State Department of Assessments
and Taxation, or by act of the General
Assembly.
|
DELEGATE CASE: The objective tests
would be or could be determined by the
General Assembly. The General Assembly
could, after determining certain broad
tests, delegate to its administrative agency
the power to write regulations which would
fill in the missing areas. This is the way
it is usually done.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Then we would
l)e back in the very situation that I think
you described so clearly to us yesterday,
where the department could establish vari-
ous objective tests, some nineteen, I believe
you mentioned yesterday.
DELEGATE CASE: Twenty-nine.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Twenty-nine—
well, that would be more — and yet the
Court of Appeals came along and said that
those twenty-nine were excess if the land
itself were actively employed for the pur-
poses of agriculture.
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct
This has been sort of a long-winded collo-
quy between us, which I have enjoyed, but
let me say this — I think what you are
getting to is the question does the commit-
tee recommendation seek to overrule the
Alsop case? And the answer is, yes.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: I think I un-
derstand what we have there.
DELEGATE CASE: Of course you know
the reason for this. It is not because the
Committee feels that it is desirable to over-
rule or to change a result of the Court
of Appeals, but rather to provide or to
make sure as far as it can be humanly
possible to be made sure that speculators
and land investors do not get the benefit
of a tax law that is supposed to be designed
for the bona fide farmer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett,
before you go to another section, may the
Chair interrupt just to button down the
last answer of Delegate Case?
As the Chairman understands, the over-
ruling of the Alsop case is intended to be
accomplished by the use of the words in
the end of section 8.02 in line 8, "as pre-
scribed by law."
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct
DELEGATE CLAGETT: That means
by act of the General Assembly. Going to
section 8.02(1), first sentence, "The State
shall prescribe and administer uniform
|
