|
AUGUST 1991
<br />
<br />Page 7
<br />
<br /> Subd. 6. Real property shall be considered to be in
<br /> agricultural use provided that annually: (1) at least
<br /> 33-1/3 percent of the total family income of the
<br /> owner is derived therefrom, or the total production
<br /> income including rental from the property is $300
<br /> plus S JO per tillable ac?e; and (2) it is devoted to
<br /> the production for sale of livestock, dairy animals,
<br /> dairy products, poultry and poultry products, fur
<br /> bearing animals, horticultural and nursery stock
<br /> which is under sections I8.44 to 18.61, fruit of all
<br /> kinds, vegetables, forage, grains, bees and apiary
<br /> products by the owner, slough, wasteland, and
<br /> woodland contiguous to or surrounded by land
<br /> described in subdivision 3 shall be considered to be
<br /> in agricultural use if under the same ownership and
<br /> manage, mont. (Emphasis supplied.)
<br />Minn. Stat. § 273.11I, subds. 3 and 6 (1988).
<br /> In the 1989 regular session, effective for the January
<br />2, 1989 assessments, the legislature amended Minn. Stat.
<br />§ 273.111, the pertinent portion of which provides as fol-
<br />lows:
<br /> Subd. 3, (a) Real estate consisting of ten acres or
<br /> more or a nursery or greenhouse qualifying for
<br /> classification ax class lb, 2a, or 2b under section
<br /> 273.23, subdivision 23, paragraph (d), shall be
<br /> entitled to valuation and tax deferment under this
<br /> section only if it is actively and exclusively devoted
<br /> to agricultural use as defined in subdivision 6 and
<br /> either:
<br />
<br />(1) is the homestead of the owner, or of a surviving
<br />spouse, child, or sibling of the owner or is real
<br />estate which is farmed with the real estate which
<br />
<br />and auditors, described the change as extending the
<br />Green Acres classification to greenhouses.-
<br /> A review of section 273.111 indicates'that there are
<br />three requirements for Green Acres classification: (1) the
<br />real estate must be ten acres or more; (2) it must be ac-
<br />tively and exclusively devoted'to agricultural use as de-
<br />fined in subdivision 6 [of section 273.111], and O) it is
<br />either the homestead of the owner or other relative or
<br />has been in possession of the applicant or members of
<br />the applicant's family for a period of at least seven years
<br />prior to application for benefits. Both parties agree that
<br />the subject parcel contains over ten acres and is home~
<br />steaded by the petitioners.
<br /> The definition in subdivision 6 defining what consti-
<br />tutes agricultural use imposes two requirements: (a) at
<br />least one-third of the total family income is derived from
<br />the property or the total production income including
<br />rental is $300 plus $10 per tillable acre; and (b) the
<br />property is devoted to the growing of livestock, nursery
<br />products, vegetables, forage, grains, apiary products, etc.
<br />The respondent did not dispute the evidence indicating
<br />that $649.30 was received from the sale of hay in 1988.
<br />In order for the subject property to qualify under subdi-
<br />vision 6, $490 or more is required. Thus, the petitioners
<br />meet this requirement. Nor does respondent dispute the
<br />evidence indicating that the 19 acres was devoted to the
<br />production of hay. Petitioners have therefore satisfied
<br />the necessary requirements of subdivision 6.
<br /> There is no requirement contained in Minn. Stat. §
<br />273.111 that the property qualify for agricultural classifi-
<br />cation pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 273.13, subd. 23. That
<br />requirement was imposed in the 1989 legislation with re-
<br />spect to nurseries and greenhouses. We need not there-
<br />
<br />contains the homestead property; or
<br />
<br />(2) has been in the possession of the applicant, the
<br />applicant's spouse, parent, or sibling or~ any
<br />combination thereof, for a period of at least seven
<br />years prior to the application of benefits under the
<br />provisions of [Laws 1969, Chapter t039,] this
<br />section, or is real estate which is farmed with the
<br />real estate which qualifies under this clause and is
<br />within two townships or cities or combination
<br />thereof from the qualifying real estate; or
<br />
<br />(3) is the homestead of a shareholder in a family
<br />farm corporation as defined in section 500.24 .... ;
<br />or
<br />
<br /> (4) is in the possession of a nursery or greenhouse
<br /> or an entity owned by a proprietor, partnership, or
<br /> corporation which also owns the nursery or
<br /> greenhouse operations on the parcel or parcels.
<br />
<br />(b) Valuation of real estate under this section is
<br />limited to parcels the ownership of which is in
<br />noncorporate entities except for ....
<br />Minn. Stat. § 273.111, subd. 3, as amended by 1989
<br />Laws, ch. 277, art. 2, § 19 (new language indicated by
<br />italics, deletions by brackets [ ])
<br /> The Department of Revenue, in its summary of Min-
<br />nesota property tax laws (June, I989) issued to assessors
<br />
<br />fore explore whether the subject property qualifies for
<br />agricultural classification pursuant to class lb, 2a, 2b
<br />under section 273.13, subd. 23(d).
<br /> In support of its position that agricultural classifica-
<br />tion under section 273.13 is a prerequisite, the respon-
<br />dent cites two cases previously decided by this Court.
<br />Carlson v. County of Hennepin, File No. TC-7592 (Minn.
<br />Tax Ct. 1989) and Prescott ~: County of Be[trami, File
<br />No. C3-88-0492 (2vfinn. Tax Ct. 1988). The Court in
<br />Carlson held that the property failed to meet the owner-
<br />ship requirement. In dictum the Court did say that the
<br />"threshold test for agricultural classification is found in
<br />Minn. Stat. § 273.13, subd. 6 before Green Acres tax de-
<br />ferment may be considered." In Prescott agricultural
<br />crops were grown on an irregular basis. The Court up-
<br />held the county board's classification of the property as
<br />residential and noted that "Green Acres classification is
<br />appropriate only where the property is classified as agri-
<br />cultural and meets the income requirements imposed by
<br />the statute."
<br /> The precise issue raised in this case was not raised
<br />in either the Carlson or the Prescott cases.
<br /> Respondent also cites that granting Green Acres
<br />classification would be inconsistent with the purpose of
<br />granting Green Acres tax deferment as pronounced by
<br />the Minnesota Supreme Court in Elwell v. Count. of
<br />Hennepin, 221 N.W.2d 538, 541 (Minn. 1974)i.and Reiss
<br />Greenhouses, Inc. ~: County of tfennepin, 290 N.W.2d
<br />785, 787-88 (Minn. 1980). In addition to constitutional-
<br />ity there were several other issues involved in the El,vetI
<br />
<br />
<br />
|