« SURV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Current Use Law (New Hapmshire) 

By: Zimbler0 in SURV | Recommend this post (3)
Fri, 17 Jun 16 6:10 PM | 143 view(s)
Boardmark this board | SURVIVAL
Msg. 00320 of 00575
(This msg. is a reply to 00317 by Decomposed)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Decomposed> I don't know what I'll do if it ever gets rid of its 'Current Use' law.

>>>
http://www.city-data.com/forum/new-hampshire/294135-can-anyone-explain-current-use.html

Maybe I can help to explain, Hepcat. Most simply put, land placed into Current Use is valued at a much lower rate than market value, so taxes are greatly reduced. Here's a hypothetical example: a 50 acre tract of land in a town with market values of $5,000 per acre, or $250,000 in total value. With a current tax rate of say 25.00 per thousand, the annual tax bill would be $6250. The land owner can apply for Current Use taxation, and if the land meets the criteria, the following April 1, the tax bill will go down. Under Current Use, the value would drop to something in the range of $200 per acre and a tax bill of $250--a huge savings.

Here's the catch: when a tract of land is placed into Current Use, a lien is put on the property, which must be paid in full before clear title could be conveyed. The land can be sold, but the lien remains on the property. When land use changes (for development, etc) there is a "land use change tax" of 10% of the current market value (based on "best and highest use of the land") Even if the current owner has no plans to develop the property, the $25,000 liability looming over the property will reduce the market value.

So, to answer your question, it would very much be in your best interest to have the SELLER pay the land use change tax prior to sale, and the Purchase & Sale should state that clear title to the land will be conveyed). IMO, there is simply no good reason that a Seller who has had the benefit of Current Use (reduced taxes) should expect a Buyer to pay even a portion of the land use change tax. But they'll try it, especially if that Buyer is unrepresented and unknowing of the implications. Also, Current Use isn't Real Estate 101, and when considering a property like this, a real estate attorney's opinion may be prudent.

>>>

Zim: I got curious.
I assume you did your homework and looked all this up, De?

Also, there is more at the site.




Avatar

Mad Poet Strikes Again.


- - - - -
View Replies (2) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Survival, Long Term, Short Term, Whatever!
By: Decomposed
in SURV
Thu, 16 Jun 16 9:47 PM
Msg. 00317 of 00575

ribit: 

re: "The way you are building in NH makes me think that long term to you means years, maybe decades. "

It's almost like I intend to LIVE there, right?

If you're going to hole up someplace, it might as well be nice.

The truth is, if I didn't have a sense of doom for our society, I'd still want to live in the place I've chosen. My brother once walked the land and told me later that it compares with Yosemite. I don't know about THAT, but you get the idea.

Without the sense of urgency, I might have just bought a house in the suburbs somewhere and never even considered moving to the country. But I'd still have had dreams about it. Ever since I was a kid, I've loved the outdoors. I used to play in the woods every day when I was 8. And I read 'My Side of the Mountain' (about a boy who runs away and lives alone in the wild for a year) when I was about that age. It obviously had an impact.

I have yet to meet the person who has been to NH and didn't conclude that it was a gorgeous state. Too bad it's changing, but that's to be expected in a state surrounded by Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine. I don't know what I'll do if it ever gets rid of its 'Current Use' law. I might not be able to afford NH anymore. I'll keep my fingers crossed that it doesn't happen.
 


« SURV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next