Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:59:15.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating the Extent to Which the Existing Property Tax Structure in Pennsylvania, Aside from Preferential Assessment, Subsidizes the Agricultural Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

Owen H. Sauerlender  and
Roger H. Downing
Owen H. Sauerlender
Affiliation:
Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, The Pennsylvania State University
Roger H. Downing
Affiliation:
Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, The Pennsylvania State University
Get access

Extract

There is widespread use at this time of various tax incentives (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 16) to stimulate property owners to maintain agriculture or open space on their land. The success of such programs will depend to a great extent upon the monetary incentives that they provide to property owners. The existence of preferential treatment in the taxing system prior to the implementation of preferential farmland assessment legislation has been proven by several authors (2, 4, 12). Such de facto preferential assessment has been noted in areas other than agricultural land (13, 20). This type of preferential assessment may be innate to the system that assessors use in determining the value of farmland (17, 18), or it may be the result of a conscious effort on the part of the assessing authorities to give preferential assessment to farm land and open space (15). The following quotation is taken from the Lehigh-Northampton County Joint Planning Commission Study, “Act 515 in Lehigh County – A Follow-Up Study”.

Type
Resource Economics
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , October 1977 , pp. 98 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Goode, Frank M. and Dean Jansma, J. 1975. Agricultural districts Status No. 34. State of New York Department Agr. and Markets: Albany, NY.Google Scholar
2. Goode, Frank M. 1977. Analyzing Assessment Equity. International Association of Assessing Officers: Chicago, IL, 216 pp.Google Scholar
3. Goode, Frank M. 1972. Fourth Report of Data on Farmland Assessment Act of 1964. New Jersey Division of Taxation: Trenton, NJ.Google Scholar
4. Goode, Frank M. 1976. International Property Assessment Administration 8. International Association of Assessing Officers: Chicago, IL, 281 pp.Google Scholar
5. Goode, Frank M. 1975. Property Tax Incentives for Preservation: Use-Value Assessment and the Preservation of Farmland, Open Space, and Historic Sites. International Association of Assessing Officers: Chicago, IL, 135 pp.Google Scholar
6. Goode, Frank M. 1973. Property Tax Reform. International Association of Assessing Officers: Chicago, IL, 171 pp.Google Scholar
7. Goode, Frank M. 1976. Untaxing Open Space. Council on Environmental Quality: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
8. Barlowe, R., Alter, T. R. 1976. Use-Value Assessment of Farm Land and Open Space Lands. Research Report No. 308. Ag. Exp. Station, Michigan State University: East Lansing, MI.Google Scholar
9. Cheng, Pao Lun. 1970. “The Common Level of Assessment in Property Taxation.” National Tax Journal. 23: 50–65.Google Scholar
10. Cheng, Pao Lun. 1970. “Statistical Control of Assessment Uniformity.” Management Science. 16: B638–B655.Google Scholar
11. Church, Albert M., Gustafson, Robert H. 1976. Statistics and Computers in the Appraisal Process. International Association of Assessing Officers: Chicago, IL, 160 pp.Google Scholar
12. Downing, Roger H., Donald, J. Epp. 1973. Real Estate Assessment by Type of Land Use for Counties in Pennsylvania, 1971. A. E. and R. S. 103, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology: University Park, PA, 73 pp.Google Scholar
13. Engle, Robert F. “De Facto Discrimination in Residential Assessments of Boston.” National Tax Journal. XXVIII (4): 445–451.Google Scholar
14. Gloudemans, Robert J. 1974. Use-Value Farmland Assessments: Theory, Practice, and Impact. International Association of Assessing Officers: Chicago, IL, 73 pp.Google Scholar
15. Informal Communications from State Tax Equalization Board. 1976. Supplemented by Property Assessment Questionnaire Data: Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, The Pennsylvania State University, 1976.Google Scholar
16. Ishee, Sidney. 1971. “The Maryland Farmland and Use-Value Law.” Proceedings of the Seminar on Taxation of Agricultural and Other Open Land. Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, pp. 23–26.Google Scholar
17. Keith, John H. 1966. Assessment Practices. Highland Publishing Co.: Monterey Park, CA, 544 pp.Google Scholar
18. Pennsylvania Department of Community Affairs. 1975. Training Program for Assessors – Student Textbook. Department of Community Affairs: Harrisburg, PA.Google Scholar
19. Reinmuth, James E. June, 1976. “Recent Advances in Sales-Ratio Analysis.” Assessors Journal. 11 (2): 101–117.Google Scholar
20. Schmid, A. Allan. January, 1970. “Suburban Land Appreciation and Public Policy.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners. pp. 38–43.Google Scholar
21. Shenkel, William M. January, 1971. “Sales-Assessment Ratios for Valuation Purposes.” Assessors Journal. pp. 33–49.Google Scholar