|
even though he permits the farmer to re-
main on the land actually farming it,
everyone in the neighborhood getting the
benefit of the open spaces? Could the State
Department of Assessments and Taxation
not provide by rule or by regulation that
as soon as the farmer who may have
farmed the place for 50 or 25 years or less
sells it to someone who is in the developing
business, that it must be assessed as sub-
division property, even though in fact it
will continue to be actually farmed and
devoted to bona fide agricultural uses un-
til the developer actually, five, ten or 25
years later, devotes it to subdivision pur-
poses?
Could the State Department of Taxation
not provide such a rule?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Judge, would you
mind restating that question? (Laughter.)
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: Let me ask first
whether the witness retains the factual
situation which predicated this.
DELEGATE CASE: I cannot remember
whether that fellow was there for 25 or
50 years. That is the part that got me
stumped.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: I submit, Mr.
Chairman, that does not make any differ-
ence, and that is my point. If the developer
sure enough buys the property in order
sometime in the future to develop it so
that he can stay in business, and we will
suppose a case where he does not want to
use it for 10 years, and he either devotes
it to a continuing agricultural use or may-
be permits the farmer who sold it to him
with or without rent to remain on the
place and devote it to bona fide farm or
agricultural use, could the regulations
adopted under this section by the State De-
partment of Assessments and Taxation
make the transfer of the property to a
developer who is in the building business,
regardless of the fact that he continues to
use it or someone does, for farm use?
Could the assessment be then and there in-
creased under rules and regulations set up
under 8.02?
DELEGATE CASE: I think that could
be done even without this section.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: You mean that
|
if a farmer continues to use his place and
does not sell it, that the assessment could
be increased?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I thought your
question was when the assignment was
made by the farmer to the developer, could
the assessment be increased, and my an-
swer is that it could be.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: In spite of the
fact that the land would continue maybe
five or ten years more to be used for bona
fide farm use?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I did not under-
stand the developer would continue the
farming.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: I postulated
that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Then the question
would be whether or not the regulations
were reasonable or not. I think that each
case would have to stand on its own facts.
There is no black and white judgment that
can be drawn when you have got the Gen-
eral Assembly, either on its own or dele-
gated to an administrative agency, with a
set of criteria to be established as to
whether a fact exists. You are going to
have cases falling on one side of the line
or the other side of the line, depending
upon the finding of fact of the tribunal.
I cannot answer you categorically what a
court can decide in any given situation.
These fact cases, like evaluation cases, for
example, in the tax field, find many dif-
ferent answers which the courts provide,
and sometimes, indeed, you must admit
that those of us who deal with these sub-
jects know they seem to be inconsistent.
But this is true in all fact cases.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Sybert.
DELEGATE SYBERT: Well, Delegate
Case, just eight years ago a constitutional
amendment was put up to the people be-
cause our Declaration of Rights prior to
that did not permit different land taxes,
the way I understand it.
DELEGATE CASE: That is correct.
DELEGATE SYBERT: When the 1959
constitutional amendment was submitted
|
