Opinion ID: 1730468
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Meaning of Primary Business

Text: The majority is most liberal in allowing the agricultural use designation to the landowner whose agricultural business produces more income than each of his other businesses or occupationshowever many the non-agricultural occupations may be and despite the fact that the total nonagricultural income and time requirements may greatly exceed those of the agricultural business. Our first step in this analysis is to decide whether we must lump the agricultural operations together. Why not permit the tax assessor to rank each farm or ranch separately? O. L. Gragg, for example, operates several different ranches. Suppose the taxpayer and his wife operate a field where they grow vegetables, while he and his son have a large cotton farm, he and another son have some chicken houses, and he and a brother operate a large West Texas ranch. Are these separate businesses under the Constitution? I think not. The Constitution provides: Agricultural use means the raising of livestock or growing of crops, fruit, flowers, and other products of the soil under natural conditions as a business venture for profit, which business is . . .. Any and all agricultural use is the one business that must be the taxpayer/landowner's primary occupation. The next step: primary. There is no problem as to the meaning of the word. The question is primary as to what? I conclude that the objective, as indicated by putting agricultural uses together, is to determine whether agriculture is the primary occupationas compared to non-agriculture. What would be the purpose of requiring that the farm be more significant than each of a dozen other ventures? This requirement of the Constitution is obviously restrictive. It was no casual bit of drafting; it was intended to prevent the owners of some farms and ranches from obtaining this advantageous assessment of their lands. The comparison that countsthe restriction that ensures that those who obtain the agricultural use designation truly deserve itis the requirement that the taxpayer/landowner be primarily in the business of agriculture, whatever else (combined) he may do as an occupation. If the rule of the majority is to apply, how shall we divide the non-agricultural occupations for purposes of comparison? Do oil and gas operations go together, or is Gragg Drilling Company one entity and Carter-Gragg Oil Company another, etc.? At some point the courts will have to write the rules for arranging these non-agricultural incomes. This could be avoided by following what seems to me to be the plain intent of the Constitution itself. The majority seems to be looking in the direction of that plain intent when it says that the denial of Gragg's agricultural use designation was justified and cites the evidence that his gross agricultural income during the three calendar years of 1970, 1971 and 1972 (together) was approximately $1 million as compared to $1.5 million income from all other sources. I agree that this proof gets to the heart of the case and requires the affirmance of the judgments of the lower courts. The non-agricultural income was all profit or gain, and the gain to Gragg from the agricultural business was necessarily much less than the $1 million (actually about $320,000). The argument for separation of the non-agricultural income would seem to be that the Constitution points to each source of income and thus requires that the taxpayer/landowner receive greater income from agriculture than from any other individual source. Gragg Drilling Company and Carter-Gragg Oil Company are two different sources of income, and their income would then be considered separately rather than added together. Gragg owns several different oil properties, and it seems that the production from each of these should be considered as income from a separate source. I conclude that whereas O. L. Gragg may have failed to make the proof required to obtain 1970, 1971 or 1972 agricultural use designations, the record and briefs in this case indicate that he may come within the new rules and be able to make the proof to qualify in future years. McGEE and JOHNSON, JJ., join in this Concurring Opinion.