|
FINANCEAND COIVIMERCE SUPRI!:ME COURT EDITION ·
<br />
<br />' ' "' Avotrs'r21' .'I~ '
<br /> · ~
<br />
<br />Mlnn, StaL§273.13, SUbd. Z3(¢).: ...-.'.::..,......, .. .....
<br />.-Wht% we hav~ adrift, seal th~ ~qmsc and applicationof th~'iFc~
<br />acr~ statu~ on prior occasions~- · -
<br />.2 i;ee, e.~,, ~ Gre,enhon~s~ Inc. v. connty of Hero.pin, 290
<br />N.W.2d 785 (Minn, 1980); EIw~II v. County of Henneptn, 301 Minm
<br />'6~, Z2~ N.W~ 538 (~4). ' ...' ..... '.', -:'
<br />
<br />we haw neither characterized it nor construed irwithi~_ tl~ broader
<br />coatext of this state's system of property taxation. In that
<br />we point out that all real property in,this state is comprehensively
<br />clsssified for tax purposes pursuant to Minn, Stat. § 273.13. h would
<br />seem to be fundamental that the subject property then must first '
<br />· satisfy the broad definition of "l~;ricultuml land" to qualify for the
<br />'legislatively identified exception for the valuation~ · '
<br />
<br />: x.- _a While Minn. Stat. § '273.11 g~m~rally l~verns thc valuation of
<br />
<br /> propa'ty, tho legislature excepted "certain agricultural ~ Ixoperty"
<br /> from .the gen~ral system of ad valorem l~Operty taxation tn effect an
<br />· equ/table basis for taxation ~through appropriate taxing rn~asur~.'
<br /> M/nm S~a § 273.111, sub& 2.
<br />
<br /> of that agricultural property. The tax court itseIf has indicated on a
<br /> number of prior _o>:':'~__sions that property must be classified as
<br /> agricultural land before the statutory requirements contained in'the
<br /> lgeea acres statute will be applied." .
<br />'- , 4 In Prescott v. County of geltramt, No. C3-88-0492 (Minn. T~
<br />Court, Small Claims Division filed July' 19, t998), ih* court stated that
<br />.i~'Crr~n acr~ classification is apl~opriate only where the property is
<br />· :classified as agricultural and meets the incom~ r,quircments imposo:L'
<br />"See Carison Realty Co, v, County of Hennepia, No. TC-7592
<br />· . Tax Court filed May 31, 1989) ('[Tlhe thr~hold test for sgricultural
<br />"classification is found in Minn. Stat. § 273.13, sub& 6 (1986), heroin
<br />~ Acres tax deferment ~catmeat may be considered.'); see
<br />
<br />· S~shnlk v. County of Hennepin, No.'I'C~9~ (Minn. TaX COtlrt filed
<br /> Dee. ~Z, XPSS). , ·
<br />
<br /> Under the statutra3, scheme, the county assessor is primarily
<br />- i'esponsible for valuation of individual parcels'of property, sul~ect
<br /> to review by local, county and stat~ boards and ultimately by th~
<br /> commissioner of revenue. In Summit House Apactment Co. v.
<br /> County. of Hennepin, 312 Minn. 358, 362-63, 253 N.W.2xt 127,
<br /> 129 t[1977), we dLscusse, d that responsibility:
<br /> Since the assessor has primary responsibility for sscer-
<br /> ~ning haxabl¢ value, ir logically follow~ that tbe task
<br /> of classifying property is an integral pan of this func-
<br /> tion. * ' * The rusk of classification also involves a
<br /> facifind/ng responsibility and is not" ' '~ simply an
<br /> adminis~afiv¢ calculation of the appropriate tax that
<br /> may be performed by the auditor. Whether a particular
<br /> · - [piece of property] qualifies for [a particular clss.sifica-
<br />· ' tion] clearly depends on a wide range of factual judg-
<br />· meats mnceming compliance with specifie.~l, statutory
<br /> criteria.. ' '
<br /> The 'primary uso' test incorporated in M!~n. SLat. § 273.13, suM.
<br /> 23(c) implies an examination of the specific nature of thc property
<br /> and th~ use or multiple uses to which that property has been put,
<br /> together with a subjective balancing of those relative uses.
<br />.., Upon review of the reo~rd submitte~ it is our vic~v that the
<br />. assessor properly concluded that the primary use Of the subject
<br /> propewy was as a 'residential homestead.' While 19 out of the 20
<br />.. acres of thc parcel amused for agricultural purposes, tho crops have
<br /> produced almost insi~ificant income when compared with tim
<br /> waluatic~ of the homeatead situated on the remaining acre. Certain-
<br /> ly, the farmland preservation purposes and the. spirit of the agricul-
<br /> tural property tax law would not be furthered by its application to
<br /> properq, of this nature. .. '
<br /> A proc~ural matter and its disposition by the tax court de.serves
<br /> commmt. The county timely filed its post-trial altemati'm motion
<br />...for mended findings of fact or for a n~v trial ss required by Minn.
<br /> R. Civ. Pro. 59.03, but did not serve its memorandum of law in
<br />
<br />suppo,'s of thc motion wifl~u thc 15-day I:~od. Whfl~ fli~
<br />addmss~ amf d~cid~ tl~ motion on i~s substantive m~rits; i
<br />a-wneously conctud~ in r~liance upon Minn. P... Civ. Pro. 6.04
<br />tha! by failing to timely serve thc supporting documents, thc counv
<br />waived ira right to ,~ek amended findings. By fim~ly filing
<br />'p oat-trial motioth the county sati.~fiexi tho jurisdictional require
<br />meats of Rule 59.03. See Relman v. Joubert, 376 N.W.2d 68
<br />CMinn. 1985"), When the county failed to timely file nec~ssav
<br />supporting documents, it became a matter of the tax court's discr~
<br />tion to ~___oee_.pt and consider the contents of those docamen'ts or t,
<br />r~ectthem. . '' . · .. '.. -
<br /> Finally,/n rtwersing the decision c~f'thd tax c°m~v~'rejeet th,
<br /> alternative r~luest by the mx'payers for an award of-attorney fee
<br />and costs. -.. - ' ..'.. ' .... :. .) . .....ii ....
<br /> R~rsed.' -" ' . · · "'!-::..'::-. ' J ' ' ... ": .... }'?2'"
<br />
<br />
<br />
|