Decision and Order
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL PURSUANT TO S. 50 OF THE ASSESSMENT ACT
CONCERNING:
AND
Assessor Of Area #27 - Peace River
|
Appeal No.: |
|
|
|
|
|
Refer to as: |
Shoaf v. Area 27 (2009 PAABBC 20091535) |
|
|
|
|
Date of Decision: |
December 11, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
Properties: |
27-60-760-007250.100, 54A Shoaf Road W, Fort St. John Rural 27-60-760-007257.000, 54A Shoaf Road W, Fort St. John Rural 27-60-760-007259.000, 54A Shoaf Road W, Fort St. John Rural |
|
|
|
|
Heard: |
|
|
|
|
|
Submissions: |
From the Appellant received September 1, October 22 & November 2, 2009 |
|
From the Respondent received October 2, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
Board Panel: |
Donald H. Risk, QC, Panel Chair |
INTRODUCTION
[1] The properties at issue in this appeal are three unimproved parcels totalling some 609 acres in a larger 8-parcel farm operation northeast of Fort St. John. All eight parcels were removed from farm classification and have been classified as residential for purposes of the 2009 Assessment Roll.
[2] The main issue in this appeal is whether farm classification should be restored to the three parcels under appeal.
[3] There are preliminary issues involving whether the Appellant’s rebuttal submission should be admitted for or excluded from consideration by the panel; and whether that submission included more than merely rebuttal evidence.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
[4] On April 25, 2009, the Board received a faxed letter apparently from the Appellant which the Registrar treated as a timely notice of appeal. By further emails and faxes between the Registrar and the Appellant including one from a BC Government office in Fort St. John on behalf of the Appellant, more complete appeal information was requested and received by May 1, 2009.
[5] Since then there have been three procedural orders of the Board in this matter setting time limits for the parties to deliver their written submissions. The first, dated June 24, 2009, required the Appellant to produce her written submission, arguments and supporting documents by August 7, 2009. Some ten days prior to that date the Assessor requested a seven day delay and the Board ordered on July 31, 2009, that the Appellant’s and Assessor’s submission deadlines be deferred one week.
[6] The Appellant did not deliver any submissions or evidence by the August 14, 2009 deadline. The Registrar on behalf of the Board spoke with the Appellant and by letter dated August 18, 2009, ordered once again that all submission deadlines be extended. The Appellant was ordered to deliver her written submission by Friday August 28, 2009; the Assessor to reply by October 2, 2009; and the Appellant to deliver a rebuttal submission, if any, by October 16, 2009.
[7] Some of the Appellant’s initial written submission came to the Board by a one sentence fax dated August 28, 2009. The balance of that submission was delivered for the Appellant by fax through the facilities of the BC Assessment office on September 1, 2009. The Assessor’s submission was received on time on October 2, 2009. There is nothing in the record to indicate any objection by the Assessor to the lateness of the bulk of the Appellant’s initial submission.
[8] The deadline for rebuttal by the Appellant was October 16, 2009. Nothing was received from the Appellant in that regard by that date. However, on October 22, 2009, the Board received a fax from the Appellant, most of which was not legible. A hard copy of the submission was received on November 2, 2009, and is part of the record now before the Board. I note that in addition to commenting on the Assessor’s submission, the rebuttal submission attempts to clarify and further adds information and argument to some of the assertions comprising her original submission.
[9] The Appellant is not represented by an agent or lawyer. She is acting on her own and is not particularly familiar with the formalities of the appeal process, despite being reminded in each order of the deadlines and the possible consequences of missing them. It appears that her resources in this economy are limited and stretched.
[10] There is nothing in the record to indicate that the Assessor objects to the late delivery of the rebuttal submission, or to the parts of it that may be seen to go beyond rebuttal and introduce new information. Nor is there any subsequent comment by the Assessor on the contents of the rebuttal.
[11] In the circumstances, I conclude and order, despite its lateness, that the rebuttal submission of the Appellant, including the parts of it that clarify and supplement her original submission will be included as part of the record of this appeal.
MAIN ISSUE: FARM CLASSIFICATION
[12] The main issue in this appeal is whether farm classification should be restored to the three parcels. Interestingly, this appeal did not start that way.
BACKGROUND
[13] In October 2008, BC Assessment advised the Appellant that, in order to confirm that all eight parcels comprising the farm continued to qualify for farm classification, she needed to file information and supporting documents such as receipts or sales logs, for the entire operation and to confirm that each parcel continues to be used as part of the farm. The Assessor set November 21, 2008 as the deadline for the filing of that information.
[14] Nothing was filed by that time. So by letter dated December 17, 2008, the Appellant was advised that all eight parcels had been removed from farm classification. The letter went on to advise that it was still not too late to re-qualify the property; and set out two alternatives for doing so, and also referred the Appellant to the BC Assessment website. The Appellant could file the requested information as soon as possible; or she could seek a review of the classification from a Property Assessment Review Panel (PARP).
[15] In January 2009 there were telephone calls between BC Assessment and Ms. Shoaf, and between BC Assessment and Mr. C Berube, another owner and Ms. Shoaf’s former spouse’s brother. Ms. Shoaf was again invited to appeal her assessments with the requested information. She did not appeal or supply any information at that time.
[16] However, on February 19, 2009, after reviewing the market values of the three parcels in this appeal, and conferring with Mr. Berube, an appraiser from the Dawson Creek Assessment Office filed an appeal and presented a recommendation to PARP for the reduction of the market value on each of the three parcels. PARP accepted the recommendation.
[17] On April 25, 2009, Ms. Shoaf’s appeal letter, referred to above, was received. In this letter the Appellant outlines her farming activities, including buying horses and selling hay. She did not include the requested forms or information in any form to corroborate her assertions.
[18] On April 30, Ms. Shoaf attended the Dawson Creek Assessment office and requested farm class be returned to all eight parcels. She was put in touch by telephone with a farm appraiser in the Prince George assessment office. Ms. Shoaf was advised that farm class could still be restored if she could provide her production and income information so that BC Assessment could verify it. Ms. Shoaf advised that her receipts and income tax returns were at her accountants; that she would receive them shortly; and that she would bring them in the following week. The appraiser offered to meet Ms. Shoaf at the Prince George office and to complete the forms together.
[19] The Appellant came into the Prince George office four weeks later on May 28 to fill out the requested forms and a new application form. She did not bring any proof of sales or income tax returns. A farm appraiser helped the Appellant fill out a new farm application. Because she was unsure of the land use of each parcel, Ms. Shoaf took the form and advised that she would fill out this remaining information at her home, and then return the form.
[20] On June 25, the day after a conference among Ms. Shoaf and her son, representatives of the Assessor, and a member of this Board, the Assessor sent 2007 and 2008 Farm Income Return forms for Ms. Shoaf to complete. The Assessor also enclosed a copy of the completed farm status application form that Ms. Shoaf had filed in August 2006. Also enclosed was a form on which Ms. Shoaf could enter the specific land use for each parcel, together with air photo maps, and other diagram forms which Ms. Shoaf was invited to use to note fence lines, rough pasture, cultivated, and/or bush areas, and the location of buildings on each parcel. The Assessor explained some of the definitions used in the forms. In this letter the Assessor also noted that all eight parcels could be restored to farm status if all parcels were farmed and the income threshold was met. The letter closed inviting Ms. Shoaf to contact the sender, or her colleague who had attended the conference the previous day, if Ms. Shoaf needed help with completing the forms.
[21] The Appellant’s initial submission consists of a number of assertions about her use of the property generally to raise horses and produce hay, including what appears to be a page or two from an accounting journal setting out a number of transactions. Some of the transactions refer to sales of equipment. Some identify sales of horses. Some name a purchaser. Some speak of a sale but do not identify what was sold. Some refer to purchases of horses. Some refer to values of horses that have died. One sales receipt for $400 is included. Some dates or date ranges are shown, but not all.
[22] The Appellant’s final submission is much more voluminous. It consists of a number of photographs (without any notes identifying the subjects of the photos or explaining the scenes photographed in any way whatsoever) and photocopies of all of the pages of the Assessor’s submission on which the Appellant has added marginal notes asserting to her farming activities; contradicting some statements by the Assessor; and filling in information on some of the forms included in the Assessor’s submission as enclosures to letters that the Assessor had sent to the Appellant. The Appellant reiterates that some of the information and documents which would support her assertions were at her accountants, and that the Assessor would get them as soon as the income tax authorities did.
RELEVANT LAW
[23] The regulatory scheme applying to farm property is relatively straightforward. An owner, like the Appellant, who wants all or part of her land to be classified as farm must apply to the Assessor, as the Appellant did in 2006, and if and when requested by the Assessor, must provide information as to the use of the parcels as part of the farm operation and as to sales or value added of production of livestock and/or crops. Certain minimum gross annual value thresholds are required to be met, in one or both of the annual periods ending October 31 in the one or two years prior to the year of the particular assessment roll. The Assessor is authorized to require from time to time that an owner provide additional information, including receipts, to permit the Assessor to ensure that the farm continues to meet the requirements for being classified as farm property.
[24] In specific terms the Assessment Act, RSBC 1996, Ch. 20 (the “Act”) provides in the following sections relevant to this appeal, as follows:
23 (1) An owner of land who wants all or part of the land classified as a farm must apply to the assessor using the application form, and following the procedure, prescribed by the assessment authority.
(2) Subject to this Act, the assessor must classify as a farm any land, or any part of a parcel of land, that meets the standards prescribed under subsection (3).
(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council must prescribe standards for classification of land as a farm.
[25] The relevant sections of the Standards for the Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation, B C Reg 411/95 as amended to Oct 18, 2007, (the “Farm Class Regulation”) are reproduced in Appendix A to this Decision.
[26] Previous cases before this Board and the courts make it clear that it is the owner’s responsibility to establish entitlement to farm status.
ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
[27] It is clear from the record that the Assessor made several requests for information and documentation, and several offers to assist the Appellant to re-qualify the property for farm status, not just for the three parcels in this appeal but all eight parcels comprising her holdings.
[28] In reviewing the whole of the Appellant’s initial and rebuttal submissions, I find numerous assertions in respect of horse rearing and hay production activities that would qualify as primary agricultural production. What the Assessor has repeatedly requested, and what is not evident from the whole of the Appellant’s submissions, is sufficient, credible, supporting evidence to permit one to conclude that all of her parcels are actively being farmed, as the Appellant asserts, and that the minimum income and production requirements are met or exceeded. I note that in her rebuttal submission, Ms Shoaf includes farm income and production and land use forms sent to her months before by the Assessor, on which she has entered information for the production years ended October 31, 2007 and 2008. And on the latter form she adds information in respect of horses held for breeding and/or sale the following year. The information finally supplied includes production dollar values that, if clarified and supported by credible evidence requested by the Assessor, such as sales receipts, would appear to exceed the minimums required by the Farm Class Regulation. The Appellant attaches the photographs mentioned above to the land use form without any explanation or identification explaining them or connecting the photos to the three parcels under appeal, or indeed, to any one or more of the eight parcels comprising her property. She again notes on one of the forms that her documents and receipts are at her accountants in Richmond BC. Her notation goes on to imply that she will be in Richmond “after selling horses”, and will obtain those records and supply them.
[29] The Appellant believes and understands that the activities on the property amount to horse rearing and farming. She may be correct, but the law of assessment in British Columbia provides an advantage to owners who bring themselves within the provisions of the legislation and regulation. Accordingly, the Appellant must provide adequate evidence to support her assertions in order for farm classification to be restored to the property. The record reveals that Ms. Shoaf has suggested that much of her records were with her accountant and were being used to prepare income tax returns. They were not provided to the Assessor. They are not included in the Appellant’s initial or rebuttal submissions. They might have been helpful. The one document that might be found to be a sales receipt refers to proceeds of only $400, which in itself is not sufficient to support a production dollar value meeting or exceeding the minimum required.
[30] The Assessor is obligated to consider the evidence provided to him in order to determine whether the evidence indicates on a reasonable basis that the property and equally importantly, the activity occurring at the property fits within the requirements of the regulatory scheme. In the event the Assessor finds the criteria for farm classification are not met, he must remove farm class if the property was previously farm class.
[31] All of the evidence that the Assessor had available to him, and additional information provided by the Appellant in her final submission, is before the Board. On the basis of that documentation, I find there is not sufficient evidence to establish that the parcels in this appeal fit within the requirements of the regulations. There are significant shortcomings as to the reliability, clarity, completeness, and accuracy of some of the records provided, and a notable deficiency of other evidence supporting that the threshold income was met in the required time frame.
[32] The Assessor’s conclusion that the evidence before him was insufficient to permit him to re-qualify the parcels for farm classification is reasonable. Farm classification ultimately entitles an owner of qualifying farmed land to a tax advantage. That advantage is prescribed by statute and regulation. The Appellant has the responsibility of satisfying the requirements for farm classification. She has not done so in this instance.
[33] I find that the proper classification of the parcels in this appeal is as currently assessed as Residential.
ORDER
[34] The Board confirms the decision of the 2009 Property Assessment Review Panel as follows:
Roll No. 27-60-760-007250.100:
|
|
|
Tax Code |
|
|
|
Land: |
13 |
$ |
||
|
Total Assessed Value: |
|
|
$ |
Roll No. 27-60-760-007257.000:
|
|
|
Tax Code |
|
|
Land: |
Class 1 - Residential |
00 |
$ |
2,300 |
|
|
Class 1 - Residential |
13 |
$ |
55,000 |
|
Total Assessed Value: |
$ |
57,300 |
||
Roll No. 27-60-760-007259.000:
|
|
|
Tax Code |
|
FROM |
Land: |
Class 1 – Residential |
00 |
$ |
3,000 |
|
|
Class 1 – Residential |
13 |
$ |
47,700 |
|
Total Assessed Value: |
$ |
50,700 |
||
Standards for the Classification of Land as a Farm Regulation, B C Reg 411/95
Interpretation
"rearing" means the breeding or raising of animals for sale;
"unrealized value" means
…
(b) in relation to livestock raising, where livestock has been raised for food for human or animal consumption on the farm in the 12 month period ending October 31 and has not been sold but is available and offered for sale or held for sale as food the following year,
(i) the increase in value attributable to weight gain of livestock raised for sale, or
(ii) the estimated value of livestock born and raised for sale based on the current farm gate price.
…
5 (1) Despite section 4, the classification of land as a farm requires the production of primary agricultural products on the farm by the owner or lessee in either the 12 month period ending October 31, or in the preceding 12 month period, having a gross annual value at farm gate prices of at least
(a) $2 500 if the area of land is between 8 000 m2 and 4 ha,
(b) $2 500 plus 5% of the actual value of the land for farm purposes in excess of 4 ha, if the area of land is more than 4 ha,
…
(3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the sale of primary agricultural products from the farm must occur during each 12 month period ending October 31.
(4) In determining the gross annual value, the assessor must
(a) consider only the value of primary agricultural production which takes place on the farm, and
(b) include any unrealized value of primary agricultural production grown or raised on the farm in the 12 month period ending October 31.
…
6 Despite section 5 (3), the assessor may classify land as farm if the primary agricultural production from the land is
(a) not sold but is produced in sufficient quantities to have met the gross annual value requirements if it had been offered for sale, and
(b) either
…
(ii) any other primary agricultural product that is grown and harvested for processing for sale or to be used in the preparation of manufactured derivatives to be made available for sale within 12 months after October 31.
10 (1) Before or after the completion of any assessment roll the assessor may require the following information:
(a) reporting from the owner or lessee to ensure that the farm continues to meet the requirements of this regulation;
(b) additional information from the owner or lessee, including receipts or copies of lease documentation, in support of farm classification.
(2) Notice to provide information must be sent by mail or served personally by the assessor.
(3) The owner or lessee must provide the information to the assessor within 21 days from the receipt of the notice or a longer period as specified in the notice.