Agenda - 08-17-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

's; E .'b ;-:•. 5z, " --. Mr. Jim Polatty - Page 4 May 30, 1982 Campbell points out that the ten-and twenty-year agreements proposed in Article 2 do not qualify as charitable deductions for purposes of federal income or estate tax benefits. In order to do so, the party subject to the development restrictions must give up his rights to perpetuity. However, requiring conservation restrictions to be perpetual may not be wise since the income and estate tax advantages of donating a conservation easement to the county may be out of reach in any case. The Internal Revenue Service (and the • State) may not be willing to allow a participating farmer to deduct the value of the conservation restriction as a gift where the county is providing the farmer with a variety of benefits in return. I Tax Incentives! The questions asked with regard to Article 2, Section 2.3(h) are unclear. First, the natal diseeter exception indicated in Section 2.3(h) does not seem to relate the questions you ask under section (d). In addition, neither the proposed amendment of G.S. 105-277.3(b)(5) nor that to G.S. 105-277.4(e)(v seems to fit into the existing statutory framework. Don Liner maintains that the classes of participation on pages 3 and 4 are confusing. In moving from Class A to Class D, each succeeding class appears to be ubject to greater property tax benefits. However, no consistent patern is evident in comparing the term of any required development rights agreement in each of the classes. Class A requires none; Class B require a 20-year agreement. However, Class C requires only a 10-year agreem nt and Class D requires a 20-year agreement like Class B. Liner wonders what the logic of this is. Liner also points out that the listing of the criteria fer classification (Article 2) appears to be intermixed with the benefits of participation. (Article 3). For example, exempting new structures from assesamen (see under "Class D" on page 4) is really a benefit for property owners in that class, not a criterion for the land affected being so classified- . Some of t-e details of the assessment roll-back seem to be omitted in the ordinance. Th ordinance lacks an explicit statement that all taxes (based on a full market talue assessment) for the three preceding years are due whenever the propery to es its qualification. Similarly the ordinance does not specifically itdicate that a participating farmer is obligated to notify the Tax Supervisor whenever his land becomes disqualified. I wonder about the significance of Section 6.1. How is it possible to violate the ordinance? If a participating farmer fails to observe a conservation agreement or otherwise fails to observe the conditions of the program, does he not simply lose his eligibility? Or is he subject to a further penalty.