|
Zimbler:
re: "I assume you did your homework and looked all this up, De?"
Yes, I knew that, but I'm glad you posted it. Some here might not know about Current Use law, and it does apply to a number of states other than just New Hampshire. Maine, for instance, definitely has it, and I've heard that, consequently, there is some billionaire who has bought up massive swaths of land in the state. I don't know if he's a conservationist or an investor, but it's an excellent way of preserving value. That land isn't going to drop in price, and his taxes are really low.
In NH, 'Current Use' law only applies to parcels of 10 acres and above. My smaller lot of 10 acres is, therefore, not in current use. Some of it is developed so the parcel is not eligible.
Ninety of the larger lot's 94 acres are, however, in current use. That gives me four high tax acres to play with and 90 acres on which I pay very little but which have to stay as they are. That's okay. I have no intention of developing them.
That doesn't mean I can't do things with the 90 acres, though. I can harvest the trees. I can plant crops and orchards. I can erect sheds. I can put in dirt roads. But I can't put up structures with foundations, erect fences or post the land as 'No Trespassing' or 'No Hunting.' I can do that with the four acres, but not the ninety.
Four acres is a lot of land. It's more than I need - especially since I checked with the town and the shape of the 4 acres has not been defined. So, I could literally have a thousand foot road with nearly two acres on either end of it, if I wanted.
Since the town hasn't pressed me to define the non-current-use land's's boundaries, I'm not going to be in any hurry to do so. One of the things I love about NH is that there is very little bureaucracy relative to what you find in bigger states. Odds are good that I could do anything I wanted with the land and nobody would question it -- except for messing with wetlands, anyway. I was already warned that there are tree-hugging liberals all over the place, particularly in my town (which reportedly has quite a few nudists), and if I had tried to build my driveway without getting the wetlands permit, some bozo would have found out and reported me.
What I really meant when i expressed my concern about the current use law is that if NH ever decides to end the practice, my property taxes would go to the moon. Potentially, it could drive me off of my land.
I don't think it will ever happen. New Hampshirites (or whatever they're called) love their wilderness, and Current Use law is one of the main reasons the land stays undeveloped. The state also has a history of grandfathering people in. So my guess is that if they ended 'Current Use' laws, those who are already there would be exempt. I sure hope so.
Gold is $1,581/oz today. When it hits $2,000, it will be up 26.5%. Let's see how long that takes. - De 3/11/2013 - ANSWER: 7 Years, 5 Months
» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Current Use Law (New Hapmshire)
By: Zimbler0
in
SURV
Fri, 17 Jun 16 6:10 PM
|
Msg. 00320 of
00575
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
| 
