HomeMy WebLinkAbout0864 ~ _ .w.
'
_ 1 l _
~ - '
_
_ ~
~ -
- ~ -
.
_ _
- ~
_ _ i
- classification. Appellee submits that although a valid legislative ~
purpose exists which justifies the employment of a standard unrelated
to present agricultural use in Section 193.461(4)(b)-, because there
is no similar justification for applying a nonuse standard to-
subdividing -property owners. subsection (4)(a)4 ~ effects adenial -
of equal protection. _ -
It is clear that Section 193.461(4)(a)4. constitutes as
attempt by the legislature to balance coepetinq State policies with ~
regard to agriculture on the one hand and taxation on the other.
The gaople of this State, recognizing that agriculture cannot
withstand taxation on the basis of the highest and best economic use
to which land might be put, have provided that agricultural land may -
be assessed solely on the basis of its agricultural use. On the
other hand, this State also has a strong interest in taxing property
at its fall value so that every property owner will be required to -
-
I; contribute his fair share of taxes. See Article VII, Section 4(a),
Florida Constitution; Chapter 193, Florida Statutes (1975); Walter v.
Schuler, 176 So.2d 81 (Fla. 1965). The legislature has poised the
f
{ balance betwen these interests by generally providing that only
property which is_primarily devoted to a good faith commercial 1
agricultural use shall be entitled to prefersatial treatment. See_
) Section 193.461(3){b), Florida Statutes (1975). Because the legislature -
has failed to expressly define the term 'use,' however, it has been
the responsibility of our courts to determias the meaning which that
body intended to accord the tsra. Ia construiaq those statutory
provisions related to agricultural Property wherein the legislature
has chosen to employ the 'use' standard for determining eligibility
for preferential tax treatment, the courts have consistently held
that actual (present) use, rather than intended (future) use is the
controlling teat. See Interlachen Lake Estates v. Snyder, 304 So.2d
433 (Fla. 1973).; Hausman v. Bodkin, 268 So.2d 407 _!Fla. 4th DCA-1972);
Schooley v. wetstone, 258 So.2d 483 (Fie. 2d DCA 1972); McRinney v.
Hunt, 251 So.2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). Similarly, a statute providing
. exemption from ad valorem taxes for nonprofit hospitals has been .
.8,
~8~317 P~ 863 ~