Free: Contests & Raffles.
But please don't say you want rates increased because that rate increase will hit me at $2750 average valuation per acre while it only hits Weyerhauser at $133 valuation per acre.
QuoteBut please don't say you want rates increased because that rate increase will hit me at $2750 average valuation per acre while it only hits Weyerhauser at $133 valuation per acre.I'm not sure I, or anyone else said they wanted the rates increased. I know Humptulips was talking about having them pay taxes on what the land is actually worth, instead of the bogus number the counties are apparently using.Why don't you check and see what your county is charging the timber companies ovèr there. I bet they pay much less per acre than you do.
How much tax did they pay on those parcels?When I looked closer at my tax statement there are 11 different taxes I am being charge for, only one of those is state tax.
I'm not sure how to check timber company rates?Can you look up timber companies taxes online?
Quote from: bearpaw on May 03, 2013, 02:47:01 PMHow much tax did they pay on those parcels?When I looked closer at my tax statement there are 11 different taxes I am being charge for, only one of those is state tax. This is for a different parcel, but it's 640 acres, taxable value listed at $73,060, and the last tax payment was on April 26, 2013 and they paid $585.98.That is for 6 months.So the annual bill for a 640 acre section of land is just under $1,200.
Good work, we are getting somewhere. Is that for all the taxes or just the state portion of the taxes?
Removal and Compensating Tax for Classified and Designated Timberland - Designated land is assessed every year as forest land until the assessor removes the classification or the landowner requests removal. Assessors may remove the property from forest land designation if they feel that the property is no longer being managed for forest uses. Designation will also be revoked if the property is sold to a buyer who does not want to use it for forestry. In all cases, the property owner has the right to appeal a removal to the county Board of Equalization.If the designation is removed either by the assessor or by request of the landowner, the owner may be required to pay a compensating tax to the county. The compensating tax is the difference in taxes between forest land assessment and "highest and best use" assessment, multiplied by the number of years the property has been classified as forest land up to a maximum of ten years.
BP,You need to look at this http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.130 and this http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=84.33.140Property that has been deemed forestland under RCW.84.33.130 have their property value set at artificially low rates under RCW84.33.140. It is State law that the maximum tax valuation of timberland is $234/acre. This is not a county problem. The assessors hands are tied by State law.Most forestland in W WA is valued for tax purposes near$150/acre, not sure about E WA.Obviously you are paying enough taxes. You are not taking advantage of this tax loophole. Your valuation is being based on actual value. That is not the case with WEYCO or any other tree farm. They get a huge break on taxes that the majority of property owners cannot take advantage of. I have been talking about working on that. It would not affect you. In fact if you have 20/acres you would be a fool not to look into this. Your taxes would go way down.I've posted those links to the laws in question and nobody seems to be looking at them. Please take the time to look and see what I am talking about.
Timber land is taxed lightly so long as it's designated timber lands, which is basically dead ground until the timber reaches a harvestable age. If the landowner designates it as anything else, they have to pay 'catch up' taxes on the increased taxable (market) value you guys are talking about for the previous 10 years. This works as an incentive for the landowner to keep their lands forested, and slams them with a wall of taxes if they back out for development or whatever else they choose to do with it. If anyone owns timber lands just sitting there it should absolutely be designated as timber lands. You're paying much more than you should be. If you change down the road though, you're going to get hit hard.QuoteRemoval and Compensating Tax for Classified and Designated Timberland - Designated land is assessed every year as forest land until the assessor removes the classification or the landowner requests removal. Assessors may remove the property from forest land designation if they feel that the property is no longer being managed for forest uses. Designation will also be revoked if the property is sold to a buyer who does not want to use it for forestry. In all cases, the property owner has the right to appeal a removal to the county Board of Equalization.If the designation is removed either by the assessor or by request of the landowner, the owner may be required to pay a compensating tax to the county. The compensating tax is the difference in taxes between forest land assessment and "highest and best use" assessment, multiplied by the number of years the property has been classified as forest land up to a maximum of ten years.http://www.timbertax.org/statetaxes/states/proptax/washington/As the population expands, more and more land is hitting the tipping point where it is more valuable to developers than as forest land. Farming timber is far from the 'highest and best use' for thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of acres. Tax it as though it were, and you'll see much of it sold off. The forest land designation was brought about I'm sure as an effort to slow the development of timber lands. Figure a 40 year rotation yields 30 MBF/acre at a stumpage of $300. That's a 40 year return of $9000/acre, or $225/acre/year on average. Hardly a lucrative investment. Not to mention logging costs and environmental restrictions continually on the rise. With the increasing size of buffers, dreaded 'occupied sites' being discovered etc., chances are you won't be able to harvest all of the acres you've invested in for four decades. Sort of jumped around there, some more things to think about.
I know one county in Eastern Wash. has that if your land is enrolled in "feel free to hunt" it counts on the public benefit rating system that reduces land taxes in the open space-open space category. We could do something like that--or only target timber owner with over 5,000 acres for increased values and taxes if they do not provide access. We taxpayers could also just charge a special tax on the income generated from the fees/leases, that way it would only affect the ones that charge.
Quote from: fireweed on May 06, 2013, 10:06:26 AMI know one county in Eastern Wash. has that if your land is enrolled in "feel free to hunt" it counts on the public benefit rating system that reduces land taxes in the open space-open space category. We could do something like that--or only target timber owner with over 5,000 acres for increased values and taxes if they do not provide access. We taxpayers could also just charge a special tax on the income generated from the fees/leases, that way it would only affect the ones that charge.I would think you would have a legitimate argument for this. It seems the asumption was the land was not going to generate any income between harvests of trees. Now they will be going to revenue generated through out the harvest cycle.
Quote from: Humptulips on May 06, 2013, 12:09:16 PMQuote from: fireweed on May 06, 2013, 10:06:26 AMI know one county in Eastern Wash. has that if your land is enrolled in "feel free to hunt" it counts on the public benefit rating system that reduces land taxes in the open space-open space category. We could do something like that--or only target timber owner with over 5,000 acres for increased values and taxes if they do not provide access. We taxpayers could also just charge a special tax on the income generated from the fees/leases, that way it would only affect the ones that charge.I would think you would have a legitimate argument for this. It seems the asumption was the land was not going to generate any income between harvests of trees. Now they will be going to revenue generated through out the harvest cycle.Yes that does sound like a reasonable argument to tax the lease income. One of the issues that bobcat pointed out was the huge reduction in public opportunity. How could a special tax on lease income improve that?