Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« SURV Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Current Use Law (New Hapmshire) 

By: ribit in SURV | Recommend this post (5)
Fri, 17 Jun 16 9:29 PM | 157 view(s)
Boardmark this board | SURVIVAL 		Msg. 00322 of 00575
(This msg. is a reply to 00320 by Zimbler0)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

zim
...in Ga they have a best use thingy. If you own a 100 acre farm they can tax it as if it were 200 half acre lots for housing. Buncha crappola if ya ax me.




Avatar

Liberals are like a "Slinky". Totally useless, but somehow ya can't help but smile when you see one tumble down a flight of stairs!

» 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.

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