Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables dispute over Kindred parcel’s tax status after owner contests agricultural classification
Summary
Property owner Tyler Kildy told the Cass County Commission the MLGC LLC parcel in Kindred should be covered by the state telecommunications gross receipts tax, not local property tax; after legal questions and requests for more review, the commission voted to table the matter for further information.
The Cass County Commission on April 20 voted to table a dispute over the tax classification of a Kindred parcel owned by MLGC LLC after the parcel’s owner challenged the county’s assessment.
Tyler Kildy, president and co-owner of Greeks County Telephone and representing MLGC LLC, told the commission the 13-acre parcel is covered by the state’s telecommunications gross receipts tax under century code 57‑34 and should not be taxed as agricultural land. "We pay gross receipt tax under the century code… the state pays it on our behalf," Kildy said, arguing that the county’s assessment would amount to double taxation.
County staff responded that the gross receipts tax covers only property physically and primarily used for telecommunications and that the burden is on the taxpayer to show that cropped or farmed portions of land are primarily used for telecommunications. County counsel referenced century code provisions and said the centrally assessed payment the county receives is a state allocation that does not necessarily fluctuate with local land use.
Commissioners and counsel discussed the need for a fuller legal review and additional factual information about the parcel’s current and planned use. After an exchange about prior legal input from county counsel, a commissioner moved to table the discussion to allow for more review and for staff and counsel to provide additional information. The commission approved the motion to table by roll call.
Next steps: the commission said it will return the item once adequate legal analysis and factual documentation (for example, evidence of buried telecom facilities or other indicators of primary telecommunications use across the parcel) are available. No final decision on the parcel’s tax status was made at the meeting.
