On January 29, 2016, the Indiana Tax Court in DeKalb County Assessor v. Chavez upheld the decision by the Indiana Board of Tax Review to reclassify 2.72 acres of land from excess residential to agricultural for the March 1, 2013, assessment date. Owners acquired 5.18 acres in the 1980s. As of the 2013 assessment date, the partially wooded property included a mobile home, a detached garage, and three pole barns. The Assessor classified one acre as residential homesite, 2.72 wooded acres as excess residential, .68 acres as a legal ditch, and .78 acres as a public road. On appeal to the Indiana Board, Owners claimed the 2.72 acres should be classified as agricultural, because it was purchased “as a woods” and Owners intended to grow and harvest the trees. In 2013, however, the property had been “logged out” and no harvesting had occurred, though some trees were mature and others were maturing. The Indiana Board agreed, reclassifying the property as agricultural.
Indiana’s assessment guidelines identified woodland – “land supporting trees capable of producing timber or other wood products” – as an agricultural use. Factors to consider in determining whether land is woodland include the existence of a timber management plan, the harvesting and sale of the timber, and whether there was a change in the use of the property. The purchaser’s reason for acquiring the land is “of particular interest.” (In 2015, the Indiana Code was modified to provide that “land devoted to the harvesting of hardwood timber is considered to be devoted to agricultural use.”)
Assessor claimed the disputed acreage was not “devoted to agricultural use” and therefore should not be assessed as agricultural land under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-13(a). At best, Owners had only a “casual motivation” to harvest trees. Having a timber management plan and actually harvesting trees are just two factors to consider, the Court observed, so it could not “find the Indiana Board erred in reclassifying [Owners’] land despite the fact they neither had a timber management plan nor had they harvested any trees.” The Indiana Board had given “significant weight” to testimony that Owners purchased the property as a “woods” and intended to harvest the trees, as the prior owners had done. Moreover, there was no evidence that Owners had changed that prior use.
Assessor lamented that placing greater weight on an owner’s intent at the time of purchase creates an “unworkable standard.” The Court would not change that standard. It would not “ignore the purchaser’s intent at the time of purchase or refuse to give it heightened import as the guidelines set forth.”
The Indiana Board considered the appropriate factors and its decision was based on relevant evidence. The Tax Court would not reweigh the evidence. The Indiana Board’s decision was affirmed.
