Opinion ID: 2513987
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Ambiguity resolved in favor of the taxpayer

Text: Due to the ambiguity in the statute and the lack of guidance by the legislature, I suggest that we must rule in favor of the taxpayer. See Transponder Corp. v. Prop. Tax Admin., 681 P.2d 499, 504 (Colo.1984); Associated Dry Goods v. City of Arvada, 197 Colo. 491, 496, 593 P.2d 1375, 1378 (1979); City & County of Denver v. Sweet, 138 Colo. 41, 52, 329 P.2d 441, 447 (1958). This view is buttressed by the fact that the Division of Property Taxation Assessors' Reference Library guidelines would support such a conclusion, as would the court of appeals' precedent on point. The General Assembly, which is charged with knowledge of applicable case law, chose not to amend the statute to achieve a different result. See Vaughan v. McMinn, 945 P.2d 404, 409 (Colo.1997) (noting that the legislature is presumed to know of judicial precedent in an area of law when it legislates in that area). III. Conclusion Notably, while the Majority concludes that the statute is not ambiguous, it does not define the term or provide guidance as to what originate from the land's productivity means. It does hold that there must be some connection between the agricultural product produced and the land itself and that building a greenhouse on the land is insufficient. Maj. op. at 995. I question what connection is needed and how close that connection must be. For instance, would it be enough if several, or even one, of the containers in the greenhouse contained soil from the ground beneath it? Does it matter whether the plants in the greenhouse remain there and grow there for a period of time or are just briefly warehoused for sale? I do note that the definition of agricultural under section 39-1-102(1.1), provides that agricultural includes farming, ranching, animal husbandry, and horticulture. Under the Majority's position, the production of animal products through animal husbandry may not be susceptible to the agricultural land classification unless the animals are in some way fed from products grown on that land. I find no statutory support for that conclusion. Until the General Assembly resolves this confusion, it is my view that we should afford the taxpayer the benefit of the tie, continue to follow the reasoning of the court of appeals and the Property Tax Administrator, and rule in favor of the taxpayer, Welby Gardens. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from the Majority opinion.