|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: It would be the
absolute, rather than variation?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: It means that it is
just not subject to tax. It is not in the
tax base.
Now, the farm property assessed for
farming is in the tax base, but it is given
a different treatment than other real estate.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Then with re-
spect to the counties acting with respect to
farmland, it could exempt or it could not
exempt it from tax? Totally exempt?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: It could probably
exempt farmland totally from tax if this
were what they wanted to do, yes. Just as
they could exempt any other type of prop-
erty which is properly classified.
They could exempt tools and machinery,
they could exempt manufacturer's inven-
tory, they could exempt inventory held by
merchants, so long as the classification is
valid. Then it can be treated in a different
manner.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett.
DELEGATE CLAGETT: And, of course,
the same thing specifically under 8.02-2
could be done by the State?
DELEGATE CASE: That is true.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Clagett?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: All right.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Case,
before we had described a number of fac-
tual elements that I believe you had indi-
cated might be taken into account in de-
termining the propriety of applying a farm
assessment classification to any particular
property.
Would this language permit the General
Assembly to state by law that one par-
ticular element or one combination of ele-
ments would be determinative?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: It gives the Gen-
eral Assembly the broadest type of latitude
to make the judgment, Delegate Chabot.
|
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CPIABOT: Would it per-
mit the General Assembly to make this
judgment, that some of the elements were
elements that related to the 'nature of the
taxpayer as well as the property. Would
it permit the General Assembly to make
these judgments with relation to combina-
tions of events and the property so that
the General Assembly might be permitted
to enact a law under which, if the property
that had received this special treatment
were sold, that there would be some special
tax which relates to the amount of tax
benefit that the property had enjoyed be-
fore?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: There is no doubt
about that in my mind.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Well, would this
power of the General Assembly be just as
broad if the entire last clause on line 7 and
8 were deleted?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I think I should
have to say that the answer to that is yes,
in my judgment it would be just as broad,
but if it wanted to act positively, as a
matter of fact it would be even broader
because if the last sentence were deleted,
then while classification is mandated in the
section, classification, some classification
for farm use is not mandated, so that the
General Assembly, if the last sentence were
deleted, could completely ignore the farm,
completely ignore it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Well, let us as-
sume for the moment that this last clause
is not deleted, it is in there and you have
a General Assembly which is determined,
as you put it, to ignore the farmer. Could
the General Assembly simply not make
such a classification?
And of course, your next question is, if
they do not make it, how do you make them
make it?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: The answer to that
is simply this: this section mandates the
General Assembly to act. Now, we passed,
must have passed 40 or 50 provisions here
in this Convention already that mandate
the General Assembly to act in some way.
|
