Mills v. Board of County Com'rs, Burleigh County, 9880
| Decision Date | 15 May 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 9880,9880 |
| Citation | 305 N.W.2d 832 |
| Parties | Betty L. MILLS, Applicant and Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, BURLEIGH COUNTY, North Dakota, Respondent andAppellee, and North Dakota State Tax Commissioner, a party pursuant to Section 57-23.2-02, North Dakota Century Code, Respondent. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Mills & Moore, Bismarck, for applicant and appellant; argued by Sherry Mills Moore, Bismarck.
John M. Olson, State's Atty., and Gail Hagerty, Asst. State's Atty., Bismarck, for respondent and appellee Board of County Commissioners; argued by Gail Hagerty.
Betty L. Mills appeals from a judgment of the district court of Burleigh County reversing a decision of the Tax Appeals Board. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
In 1977, following assessment of her land and residence, Mills applied to the Burleigh County Board of Commissioners ("County Board") for abatement of taxes on the home as a farm improvement and also alleged an arbitrary assessment of the land. The County Board denied the application for abatement and Mills appealed to the North Dakota Tax Appeals Board. 1 The Tax Appeals Board determined that the home was exempt as a farm improvement, that the land was arbitrarily assessed, and ordered an abatement of the taxes. The County Board appealed the decision of the Tax Appeals Board to the district court of Burleigh County, 2 which reversed the Tax Appeals Board decision that the home was exempt as a farm improvement. Mills has appealed the district court's decision that the home is not exempt as a farm improvement. 3 She raises two issues on appeal:
1. Is the Tax Appeals Board's finding that the taxpayer is a farmer supported by the evidence?
2. Is the Tax Appeals Board's finding that the land is agricultural supported by the evidence?
Before considering the issues raised on appeal we briefly consider the function of the courts in an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeals Board. This court has not specifically defined the scope of review in an appeal from a decision of the Tax Appeals Board. In Caldis v. Board of Cty. Comrs., Grand Forks Cty., 279 N.W.2d 665 (N.D.1979), the issue of whether or not the Tax Appeals Board's procedures are subject to the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, Chapter 28-32, N.D.C.C., was raised but not answered. 4
The district court as well as the parties to this appeal assume that the procedures governing the review of a decision of an administrative agency apply to appeals from the Tax Appeals Board and we will apply that standard for the purpose of our review. 5 We have said that on an appeal from the decision of an administrative agency we review the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order made by the agency rather than the findings of the district court. Bromley v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 304 N.W.2d 412 (N.D.1981). Pursuant to the pertinent provisions of Section 28-32-19, N.D.C.C., we must affirm the decision of the administrative agency unless we find:
In Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214, 220 (N.D.1979), we stated:
We look now at the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Tax Appeals Board pertinent to the issues before us:
Section 57-02-08(15), N.D.C.C., provides that the following property is exempt from taxation:
Mills argues that the Tax Appeals Board found the land to be agricultural farmland; that she lived and resided on the property using the home as an agricultural residence; that the major portion of her time was spent on the agricultural land; and that the major portion of her income was from farming. She therefore urges us to determine that the findings of the Tax Appeals Board support its conclusions that the owner meets the definitional requirements of a farmer. Mills and the County Board argued in detail the source of Mills' income. Mills contends that more than 50 percent of her income is from farming, that the home is conducive to farming, and that the majority of her income-producing time is spent farming. Several of these matters involve intriguing questions, such as:
(1) Is the land on which the home is situated agricultural land? 6
(2) Does the production of hay and the growing and selling of firewood constitute farming? 7
Regardless of how interesting these other issues may be, we deem it necessary to consider only one issue: Is Mills a farmer? Conceding for the purposes of this opinion, but without so deciding, that the land upon which the home is located is agricultural and that it is a farm, we determine that the conclusions of the Tax Appeals Board that Mills is a farmer are not supported by its findings of fact.
Before examining the specific findings which lead to our determination, we emphasize that Section 57-02-08(15), N.D.C.C., as it now exists, specifically provides that it is the intent of the Legislative Assembly that the exemption as applied to a residence is to be strictly construed and interpreted to exempt only a residence which is situated on a farm "and which is occupied or used by a person who is a farmer and that the exemption shall not be applied to property which is occupied or used by a person who is not a farmer." A "farmer" is defined by the provision as meaning an individual "who normally devotes the major portion of his time to the activities of producing products of the soil, poultry, livestock, or dairy farming ... and who normally receives not less than fifty percent of his annual net income from any one or more of the foregoing activities; ..."
The finding of the Tax Appeals Board pertinent to this issue is simply that Mills "lives and resides upon the subject property, utilizing the same as an agricultural residence, ... and that she spends the major portion of her time on the agricultural land." It is apparent that one who lives and resides on the land and spends the major...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Tax Assessment of Woodlands
...(Oregon 2005); R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8-28 (1984); Tex. [Tax] Code Ann. §§ 41.43 and 42.43 (2007); Mills v. Board of County Commissioners of Burleigh County, 305 N.W.2d 832, 833-34 (N.D.1981); Board of Assessment Appeals v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198, 204 (Colo.2005); OCGA § 48-5-41(Ga.); Lamad Mini......
-
Riverview Place, Inc. v. Cass County By and Through Cass County Bd. of Com'rs, 890157
...harsh or strained construction to obtain a reasonable result effectuating the intent of the Legislature. See, e.g., Mills v. Board of County Com'rs, 305 N.W.2d 832 (N.D.1981). We have also stated that the determination of whether an institution falls within the exemption is, essentially, a ......
-
Ladish Malting Co. v. Stutsman County By and Through Stutsman County Bd. of Com'rs, 10533
...construction to obtain a reasonable result effectuating the legislative intent in providing a tax exemption. Mills v. Board of County Commissioners, 305 N.W.2d 832, 836 (N.D.1981). The legislative intent must first be sought from the language of the statute; however, if a tax statute is amb......
-
Minot Farmers Elevator v. Conrad, 11105
...statute will receive a strict construction against the claimant. Grant Farmers Mut., 347 N.W.2d at 327; Mills v. Board of County Com'rs, 305 N.W.2d 832, 836 (N.D.1981). However, words describing the object of a tax exemption will be given a liberal and not a harsh or strained construction i......