Why I love OFBF
- Thread starter Ohiosam
- Start date
- 39,193
- 274
Every dollar we make is taxed 8-10x by the time we get it. Shit. We're even taxed to spend it. Just for the sake of debate though. Concept still applies. A 200k crop should count as an improvement for the period of the year it exists. If you build a barn on your property you're going to owe property taxes on that improvement, even if you tear it down 4 months later and sell it, you'll still owe a taxable value for the period it was there.
If I plant 400 Christmas trees valued at 50 bucks each am I going to value and sell my property based on the barren land value? No. Timber prices increase the value of the property. Corn and beans should be no different and based on the value of the yield that year.
I have an OFBF membership to get a discount on my Nationwide insurance. I'm swithcing insurance next week and letting my membership expire. Tired of feeding the machine that has nearly single handedly ruined one of my favorite pastimes.
I'll bite.
I feel like farmers receive more than their fair share of tax benefits. But. . . The crops are temporary and are taxed when sold. If I put up a temporary shed or hoop house which could be moved off the property in a day or two, should I pay higher property taxes? Crops are not permanent improvements anymore than a hoop house. I could take down a hoop house quicker than I could put one up. Would I need to pay higher property taxes for it or should I have to pay taxes on the plants grown inside it?
- 39,193
- 274
Timber is not a permanent improvement it's just a plant that grows in the dirt, yet it increases property value and taxes. 2 days for a hoop house is a lot shorter than the 7-8 months the crops are in the field. A better analogy would be if you built a barn on the property every single year, but took it down during the 4 months of winter. You would be hard pressed to argue with the county auditor that it shouldn't count and not be taxed.
Jack land and perminate buildings are considered real property. Crops, equipment, supplies, inventory, and movable (i.e. Hoop houses) buildings are personal property. Utility equipment such as poles and wires are also considered personal property.
I don't believe Ohio taxes any personal property any more, Taft did away with those and replaced them with the commercial activities tax.
I don't believe Ohio taxes any personal property any more, Taft did away with those and replaced them with the commercial activities tax.
Last edited:
- 39,193
- 274
The presence of timber increases property value and as such increases taxable value. How can one plant that grows in the dirt increase value but another plant can't? If the argument is that the crop is temporary then the taxable value should be factored as a percentage of the year it existed.
Btw. Lol.
Timber lowers the value of land by about 20%, at least it does for agricultural land.
http://www.tax.ohio.gov/Portals/0/personal_property/Copy of 2014 Table for ODT Web.xlsx
http://www.tax.ohio.gov/Portals/0/personal_property/Copy of 2014 Table for ODT Web.xlsx
- 39,193
- 274
For land classified as agricultural and under the CAUV system yes. I just realized something in my my research. CAUV is calculated by the following.
""Current agricultural use land value can be estimated by the capitalization of the typical net income from agricultural crops on a given parcel of land, assuming typical management, cropping patterns, and yields for the type of soil present on the tract. Values estimated by this method will closely approximate actual market values of farm land where the actual highest and best use is exclusively agricultural, unaffected by other uses."""
Basically I'm saying the same thing, just a different way to calculate it without estimating. Today the CUAV system estimates price of the land based on perceived income from crops under their best potential. In their example they "estimate" land value by guessing based on yield values in various soil types for possible income under ideal conditions and care.. I'm saying base it on the actual real income. If a farmer doesn't grow a thing he pays the property tax based on the land value. If a farmer grown 2 million in crops he pays property tax on the land value + the added land value due to the crop it produced. No more estimating, guessing, testing soils and other BS guess work.
We don't base a persons income tax on their income potential, or by guessing earning abilities based on IQ tests and what we "think" they should make. We base it on actual income. Agricultural use property taxes should use the same method of calculation. Actual value based on use.
Buckmaster
Senior Member
Bottom line, taxes suck....coming and going.....
I filed a complaint last month with my County Auditor. We'll see how it goes.
Last April 2014 I bought the property next door...a vacant wooded lot. I paid 48% less than what it sold for 10 years ago.
I received the tax bill last month and was shocked the taxes have risen even though I paid what I believed to be "market value" for the property and thus a new sale price was established.
Thus, I paid my tax bill in full but I've filed a challenge/complaint. I'm sure I'm on the losing end of that topic but it never hurts to try for a tax reduction.
I filed a complaint last month with my County Auditor. We'll see how it goes.
Last April 2014 I bought the property next door...a vacant wooded lot. I paid 48% less than what it sold for 10 years ago.
I received the tax bill last month and was shocked the taxes have risen even though I paid what I believed to be "market value" for the property and thus a new sale price was established.
Thus, I paid my tax bill in full but I've filed a challenge/complaint. I'm sure I'm on the losing end of that topic but it never hurts to try for a tax reduction.
Good luck Ben.
Nice attachment Joe. You are correct. Debating with you is about as productive as sitting in your vehicle on jack stands with the wheels off. Probably not going to get very far. lmao
Nice attachment Joe. You are correct. Debating with you is about as productive as sitting in your vehicle on jack stands with the wheels off. Probably not going to get very far. lmao
I sent an email to OFBF asking for clarification that farmers in some counties will have to pay the higher taxes and farmers in some counties will not. They had a lawyer reply in an unintelligible hillaryesque manor. So I take that to mean I'm screwed.
So Joe by your method how would a landowner who rents his farm set the rent if the taxes he'd pays were based on the value of the crops grown?
- 39,193
- 274
The same way it is now. Nothing really changes there. The lease price is usually based on acreage and suspected yield.
For example the averages are
Western ohio.
Average cropland - average yield 160 bushels - lease price - $215 per acre or 1.34 rent per bushel produced.
Top cropland - average yield 192 bushels - lease price $283 per acre or 1.47 rent per bushel produced.
Poor cropland - average yield 157 bushels - lease price $156 per acre or 1.23 rent per bushel produced.
Yeah but what about the farmer that grows specialty crops. 1 year the farmer might grow a high value crop that grosses $10-20k and the next several years grow crops that gross $300-600 per acre. By changing tax valuation every year there could be huge swings in taxable value. This would be a bureaucratic nightmare, because when when values change everyone's taxes are recalculated. In Ohio if a school levy is supposed to raise a million dollars everyones taxes are adjusted so it never collects more or less than that million.
Also by your method residential taxes would be based on the number of occupants. 2 people in the house you pay X, have a baby you pay X x 1.5, twins X x 2. Then commercial property would be taxed based gross sales. Sell high value products like jewelry, new cars or high value services like Dr or lawyer you'd pay a much higher value. Sell second hand clothes or run a daycare you pay less.
Also by your method residential taxes would be based on the number of occupants. 2 people in the house you pay X, have a baby you pay X x 1.5, twins X x 2. Then commercial property would be taxed based gross sales. Sell high value products like jewelry, new cars or high value services like Dr or lawyer you'd pay a much higher value. Sell second hand clothes or run a daycare you pay less.
- 39,193
- 274
I'm not talking about residential taxes. Nobody said anything about occupants. Were talking about property taxes on land classified as agricultural and taxes based on CAUV. I'm talking about instead of "calculated agricultural use value" becomes "actual agricultural use value" remove the guessing for supposed yields based on soil types and optimal farming practices and base it on actual yield. That's the fairest way.
As for the levy that would be calculated on the standard land value side of the equation. Remember I said "land value + agricultural use value" the guy with 1000 acres and grows corn will pay the same towards the levy as the guy with 1000 acres and grows nothing. Total tax paid would vary however because one has increased value based on agricultural use.