In re Goddard
Decision Date | 04 April 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 97,332.,97,332. |
Parties | In the Matter of the Appeal of GODDARD, Jerry D. & Pat, from an Order of the Director of Taxation Denying Application for Exemption from Ad Valorem Taxation in Cloud County, Kansas. |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Glenn H. Griffeth, of Topeka, for appellant.
Robert A. Walsh, county attorney, for appellee.
Before RULON, C.J., MARQUARDT and GREENE, JJ.
Jerry and Pat Goddard (taxpayers) appeal an order of the State Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) denying in large part their claim for an exemption from ad valorem tax on equipment utilized in their tree harvesting and sawmill operation pursuant to K.S.A.2007 Supp. 79-201j(a), arguing that BOTA misconstrued and applied the operative statute and that its order was otherwise arbitrary and capricious. Concluding that taxpayers' sawmill operation is not "farming" for purposes of the exemption statute, we affirm BOTA.
Taxpayers harvest cottonwood trees and operate a sawmill in Cloud County for the sole purpose of cutting the harvested cottonwood logs into rough boards for shipment to a manufacturer of shipping pallets and wooden crates. When the Cloud County Appraiser sought to assess ad valorem taxes on their machinery and equipment, taxpayers filed their application for an exemption on their sawmill equipment and yarding tractor pursuant to 79-201j(a), the statutory exemption for farm machinery and equipment.
In response to the application, the Cloud County Appraiser recommended no relief, stating:
Upon request of BOTA for additional information to support the application, the taxpayers explained their operation as follows:
Following a hearing on the matter, BOTA held that the yarding tractor qualified for exemption, but that all other equipment associated with the sawmill did not. In so holding, BOTA stated:
The Goddards' motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. The Goddards timely appeal. Standards of Review
The applicable standard for our review of an order of BOTA is governed by K.S.A. 77-621(c), which provides that we may grant relief if we determine:
In an exemption case, we are mindful that, in general, taxation is the rule, and exemption the exception. Constitutional and statutory provisions exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed against the party claiming exemption, and all doubts are to be resolved against exemption. In re Tax Appeal of Lietz Constr. Co., 273 Kan. 890, 904-05, 47 P.3d 1275 (2002); Tri-County Public Airport Auth. v. Board of Morris County Comm'rs, 245 Kan. 301, 304-05, 777 P.2d 843 (1989).
This appeal requires that we construe and apply a tax exemption statute, and the general rules for statutory construction are also applicable. The fundamental rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature governs if that intent can be ascertained. The legislature is presumed to have expressed its intent through the language of the statutory scheme. Ordinary words are given their ordinary meanings. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, the court must give effect to the intention of the legislature as expressed, rather than determine what the law should or should not be. Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska v. Kline, 283 Kan. 64, 77, 150 P.3d 892 (2007).
Taxpayers argue that BOTA construed the applicable exemption statute too restrictively in contravention of legislative intent. K.S.A. 2007 Supp. 79-201j(a) provides:
The legislature has expressed its purpose for this exemption at K.S.A. 79-201i, which states:
Although taxpayers urge us to focus on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rural Water Dist. No. 4 v. City of Eudora, Kan.
...(10th Cir.2008) (quoting Copier ex rel. Lindsey v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 138 F.3d 833, 838 (10th Cir. 1998)). 79. In re Goddard, 39 Kan.App.2d 325, 180 P.3d 604, 607 (2008). 80. In re Dir. of Prop. Valuation, 284 Kan. 592, 161 P.3d 755, 761 81. State v. Moffit, 38 Kan.App.2d 414, 166 P.3d 4......
- Robinson v. Southwestern Bell Telephone
-
In re Genstler Eye Center & Clinic
...concerning exemption are to be resolved against the exemption and in favor of taxation. In re Tax Exemption Application of Goddard, 39 Kan.App.2d 325, 180 P.3d 604 (2008). Overview of the Kansas Enterprise Zone Tax Exemption Genstler seeks a sales tax exemption for tangible personal propert......