Tax department asked to update 2013 study to assess whether horse operations should qualify for current‑use property tax

A legislative committee asked Jill Ramik, director of property evaluation and review at the Tax Department, to update a 2013 study to analyze whether equine (horse) operations should qualify as farming for current‑use property tax purposes.

The committee opened the discussion by flagging a lack of hard numbers and by asking the department to revisit the earlier field‑intensive report so lawmakers have updated fiscal and eligibility data before finalizing statutory language. "My name is Jill Ramik. I'm the director of property evaluation and review at the Tax Department," Ramik said, adding that the 2013 report involved field visits and parcel‑level analysis that would require staff time to replicate.

Ramik and committee members discussed how current law treats animal activities: under current statute, breeding and selling animals can be treated like livestock operations and count as farm activity. Committee members said industry stakeholders suggested starting eligibility thresholds at about 25 acres or a model of "four horses" and noted that one way parcels under 25 acres can qualify now is if the individual derives more than 50% of annual gross income from the business of farming.

The group debated two different income tests: a small fixed dollar test discussed informally in the hearing (the transcript referenced a $2,000 test) and the established gross‑income test. A committee participant warned that a $2,000 threshold could lower the bar substantially compared with the gross‑income approach. Ramik said the department would need to identify which items on federal returns (Schedule F) should be counted as qualifying agricultural income for equine activities.

Members also raised questions about ownership structures: "How does the ownership work?" a committee member asked, citing LLCs, partnerships and spouses filing jointly. Ramik clarified the department’s review focuses on individuals’ reported income (including joint filings) and noted that filing and ownership arrangements can affect qualification.

Lawmakers asked whether nonresident ownership would bar qualification; Ramik said current‑use reviews consider income from other states and that primary residence is not required for eligibility. The committee discussed examples — such as an out‑of‑state owner receiving some Vermont farm income — to test how the income test would apply in practice.

On timing and method, Ramik said the department could attempt a less field‑intensive update using remote data analysis and internal property records to identify likely eligible parcels, but that staff capacity and the labor‑intensive nature of the work would constrain timing. The committee asked the Joint Fiscal Office to coordinate so the statutory definition and fiscal estimates align before final drafting.

Separately, members noted an unresolved drafting and fiscal question in bill 942 about a sales‑tax exemption for parts versus whole vehicles. The committee said they will ask Bradley (the drafter) and Joint Fiscal for clarification and a fiscal estimate before proceeding.

The committee held a straw‑poll understanding to move forward with asking Ramik to update the report and to reconvene briefly to consider draft language; no formal vote was recorded at the meeting. The committee requested the Tax Department and Joint Fiscal Office return with clarified fiscal impacts and adjusted draft language for a follow‑up meeting.