|
You have indicated that the phrase
"property tax assessments" in lines 14, 15,
and 16 in section 8.02-1 is not the use of
the term "assessments" in the broad sense
in which it was used in section 8.02.
Is it also true that it is narrower in
that you are there talking about ad va-
lorem valuation for the purposes of prop-
erty tax assessment, rather than the as-
sessment of the property taxes in deter-
mining the amount of the tax?
DELEGATE CASE: The word "assess-
ment" as used in the property tax field
means as you have suggested. I have never
heard the word "assessment" in the prop-
erty tax field to mean the application of
the rate to the base.
THE CHAIRMAN: So that in this sec-
tion we are using the term in the sense of
ad valorem valuation for purposes of prop-
erty tax.
DELEGATE CASE: This is correct. It
is not the question of being broader or nar-
rower than the word in section 8.02. It is
just a different thing.
THE CHAIRMAN: All right, Delegate
Clagett, do you have a further question?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: One further
question.
Delegate Case, under section 8.02-2 there,
again, exemptions apply only to the State,
and with respect to property taxes, assum-
ing that they were turned over to the coun-
ties, could the county exclude any exemp-
tions or abolish any exemptions whatso-
ever?
DELEGATE CASE: As far as county
tax purposes are concerned, yes, so long as
they were uniform.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Therefore, it
could exclude a farm devoted to agricul-
tural use from any exemption?
DELEGATE CASE: You mean it could
completely exempt it, as distinguished from
giving it a different type of assessment,
because we are talking about two different
things.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Let us take it
the other way around. They could refuse to
give it any special assessment for exemp-
tion classification.
THE CHAIRMAN : Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: No, they could not.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: I am afraid, Dele-
gate Clagett, by the use of the word "ex-
emption" in connection with that sentence
it may have confused them. You said classi-
fication or exemption. Would you separate
the two?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Let us take
them in order.
Could it exclude the land devoted to ag-
ricultural use from classification?
DELEGATE CASE: In my judgment, it
could not.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Now, then —
DELEGATE CASE: Section 8.02 would
control it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: With respect
to 8.02-2, even though it may classify, since
the restriction is upon the State only to
provide for exemptions, could it fail to
exempt either in part or in whole agricul-
tural land after it has been classified?
DELEGATE CASE: Could it fail to
exempt? I think you are confused, Delegate
Clagett.
The farm tax problem which is dealt
with in section 8.02 is a part of the assess-
ment procedure. It has nothing at all to do
with exemptions.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: That is ex-
actly why I am asking questions, because
I do not want to be confused. I want to un-
derstand what we are doing here. The
classification for the purposes of assess-
ment merely gives an area where an ex-
emption can be granted by the State if it
sees fit to do so, that is, an exemption from
what would otherwise be a different rate
of tax.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I prefer the words
"different treatment," rather than exemp-
tion, because it is not an exemption.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Then going
back down to 8.02-2, do I understand the
word "exemption" means different treat-
ment?
DELEGATE CASE: Exemption means-
it is a different treatment, but it is a com-
plete absence of treatment, not a different
treatment — an absence of treatment, not
a different treatment.
|
