Opinion ID: 6330575
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: .. (c) Growing Christmas trees or ginseng.

Text: 8 No. 2019AP1618.pdr . . . . (4) Land devoted primarily to agricultural use means land in an agricultural use for the production season of the prior year, and not in a use that is incompatible with agricultural use on January 1 of the assessment year. § Tax 18.05. ¶56 I follow the requirements of Wis. Admin. Code § Tax 18.05, which are directed by Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2)(c)li., to determine whether Nudo's land was devoted primarily to agricultural use. The majority opinion makes up its own definition of devoted primarily to agricultural use instead of interpreting § 70.32(2)(c)li and § Tax 18.05 as required by the rules of statutory interpretation.7 Section Tax 18.05(4) provides that we determine whether the land was in an agricultural use in the prior season and whether its use on January 1 was incompatible with agricultural use. ¶57 Incompatible is not a defined term in the administrative rule. Because we generally apply the same rules of construction to interpreting administrative rules as we apply to statutes, I consult a dictionary for a plain meaning definition of incompatible. Voces De La Frontera, 373 Wis. 2d 348, ¶13. Incompatible is defined as incapable of association because incongruous, discordant, or disagreeing; unsuitable for use together because of undesirable chemical or physiological effects. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 581. 7 Id., ¶¶23, 24. 9 No. 2019AP1618.pdr ¶58 Wisconsin Admin. Code § Tax 18.05(4) expressly confirms that January 1 of the assessment year, not some future year, is the controlling date when evaluating a claimed agricultural classification. Notwithstanding this clear directive, the majority opinion is based on future use, not on January 1, 2018.8 The majority opinion simply finds the plain words of § Tax 18.05(4) inconvenient, so it ignores them. ¶59 Furthermore, Wis. Stat. § 70.10 connects with the administrative rule to confirm the date on which claimed agricultural classifications must be made. The classification decision was an integral component of the assessment accepted by the Board of Review; therefore, recognizing and understanding this connection is critical to evaluating whether the Board of Review's decision followed the law. ¶60 Statutory classification directives provide a level playing field for citizens and municipalities because they provide the process that both parties are to use in classification disputes. When this court does not follow the required date of classification set by statute and instead affirms a classification decision at a date contrary to the dates set out in Wis. Stat. §§ 70.109 and 70.32(2)(c)li10 and contrary to Wis. Admin. Code § Tax 18.05(4),11 the court's 8 Id., ¶¶2, 24, 25, 26, 29. 9 The assessor shall assess all real and personal property as of the close of January 1 of each year. Wis. Stat. § 70.10. 10 'Agricultural use' means agricultural use as defined by the department of revenue by rule . . . . Wis. Stat. § 70.32(2)(c)li. 10 No. 2019AP1618.pdr decision harms both the citizen and the municipality because its decision changes the process the legislature created to resolve classification disputes. ¶61 Nudo's land was owned by Kenosha County when he purchased it on September 11, 2017. There were walnut trees and Christmas trees growing on it then. Growing walnuts is a subsector 111 Crop Production, set forth in the NAICS, and therefore an agricultural use. Wis. Admin. Code § Tax 18.05(1)(a). Growing Christmas trees is also an agricultural use. § Tax 18.05(1)(c). ¶62 Walnut trees do not bear fruit until they are approximately 10 years of age. WPAM at 14-19. Nudo testified that he harvested walnuts in 2017, so the trees were mature and bearing fruit in the production season prior to his purchase. ¶63 Nudo also ordered 300 trees to plant as wind-breaks to protect the walnut trees; he obtained permits to harvest Christmas trees and to raise livestock. There was no testimony that anything about his use of the property on January 1, 2018, was incompatible with the agricultural use that occurred the prior production season. ¶64 Instead, the uncontradicted testimony showed Nudo's use of the land was similar to the agricultural use to which it was placed in the prior production season. He cut paths to more 'Land devoted primarily to agricultural use' means land 11 in an agricultural use for the production season of the prior year, and not in a use that is incompatible with agricultural use on January 1 of the assessment year. Wis. Admin. Code § Tax 18.05(4). 11 No. 2019AP1618.pdr easily get to the walnut trees, ordered trees to plant as windbreaks for the walnuts, obtained permits to raise cattle and obtained needed approvals to cut Christmas trees. There was no testimony that any of these uses was incompatible with agricultural use of the land. ¶65 Wisconsin Stat. §§ 70.10, 70.32(2)(c)li. and Wis. Admin. Code § Tax 18.05(4) connect to require the claimed agricultural use be evaluated as of January 1, 2018. The Board of Review relied on some potential future use due to the recommendation of the assessor. The assessor relied on a statement from WPAM. However, for this dispute, employing a future use conflicts with both statutes and the administrative code. Failing to follow what they direct and relying on WPAM is an error of law. Metro. Holding Co., 173 Wis. 2d at 632-33. ¶66 The majority errs in the same way when it relies on WPAM's guidance that an assessor can look forward into prospective use when classifying property.12 When property for which agricultural classification is claimed, January 1 of the assessment year must be the classification date in order to comply with Wis. Admin. Code § Tax 18.05(4), Wis. Stat. §§ 70.10 and 70.32(2)(c)1i. Ignoring January 1 as the dispositive date, is in conflict with both the administrative code and statutes. As we long ago explained, when WPAM and statutes conflict, statutes control. Id.