Opinion ID: 1497714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Tree Growth Tax Reimbursement

Text: The plaintiffs also contend that section 578 of the Tree Growth Tax Law, 36 M.R.S.A. §§ 571 to 584-A (1990 & Supp.1994), violates Article IX, Section 8. In order to encourage forest landowners to continue the forest use of their land, the statute allows all landowners to obtain reduced valuation rates, set by the State Tax Assessor, on their forest property. Id. §§ 572, 576. This lessens the owners' real estate taxes and results in the local taxing authority receiving less revenues than if the reduced valuation rates were not imposed. The State reimburses a municipality actually levying and collecting municipal property taxes . . . [for] 90% of the per acre tax revenue lost as a result [of the lowered valuation rates]. Id. § 578(1). The unorganized territory does not receive any reimbursement from the State. [10] Id. § 578(2). The plaintiffs' contention that the tree growth tax violates Article IX, Section 8 is unpersuasive. Their argument concerns the distribution of tax revenues, not the apportionment and assessment of taxes. Although Article IX, Section 8 requires equal assessment of property taxes, it does not apply to the manner in which the government chooses to spend tax revenues. There is no requirement that the Legislature distribute tax revenues equally, see Opinion of the Justices, 339 A.2d 492, 510 (Me.1975) (legislative scheme for distribution of revenues lies outside scope of Me. Const. art. IX, § 8), and the method of distribution is not a factor for us to scrutinize when we consider a tax statute's constitutionality. Sawyer, 109 Me. at 174-76, 83 A. 673. The failure of the State to provide forest land reimbursements to the unorganized territory does not violate Article IX, Section 8.