Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Court: Farmers don’t need to sell crops to get tax break

By: Associated Press//March 14, 2019//

Court: Farmers don’t need to sell crops to get tax break

By: Associated Press//March 14, 2019//

Listen to this article

By TODD RICHMOND Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin farmers don’t need to sell their crops to qualify for property tax breaks, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The ruling stems from a dispute over whether the town of Delafield Board of Review properly reclassified two parcels Peter and Therese Ogden own from agricultural to residential in 2016. The change resulted in the Ogdens’ property taxes increasing from $17,000 to $886,000, according to court documents.

The board reclassified the land because an assessor thought the parcels weren’t being used to sell crops commercially. The Ogdens countered that they grow apples, hay and Christmas trees, all products for agricultural uses as defined by the state Department of Revenue.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a business purpose isn’t needed for an agricultural classification. The court noted that state law and administrative rules refer to growing the specific crops the Ogdens were raising, not marketing, selling or profiting from them.

“So long as land is devoted primarily to ‘agricultural use’ as defined by our statutes and rules, that use need not be carried out for a business purpose in order for the land to qualify as “agricultural land” for property tax purposes,” Justice Shirley Abrahamson wrote.

The Ogdens’ attorney, Paul Zimmer of the O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong and Laing law firm, said he’s not sure how many other farmers may be in similar situations as the Ogdens. But he said the decision ensures uniformity in how agricultural land is taxed.

“Hopefully after today assessors won’t come to these off-hand conclusions about what’s not really in the law,” Zimmer said. “The whole purpose of the law is to help preserve Wisconsin’s farm land. This decision will help stop assessors from coming up with some other reason to change the classification. It’s good for small farmers around the state.”

The Board of Review’s attorney, R. Valjon Anderson, didn’t immediately return a voicemail.


Should membership in state bar be mandatory?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests