Tax Consequences for Participating Landowners?
The following has also been presented to at least one M.D., Municipal Affairs, SRD and Fish & Wildlife for consideration and account:
It is the desire of the Province (letter from Ted Morton and information available on the University of Calgary website) to increase wild game populations, a public trust, and give control and/or de facto ownership of these same game animals to certain landowners for personal economic gain. This is especially relevant to the Hunting for Habitat (HFH) proposal.
The logical and desired (apparently) outcome of the increase in game populations (particularly elk) is a net decrease in current and potential agricultural lands. It can be argued, at the very least, that portions of the land use will change from agricultural to commercial and/or recreational as evidenced by particular landowner’s economic gain in the sale of wildlife and access to the same. Will participating landowners have their property tax reassessed (increased) to recognize the change in land usage and increased economic benefits of the same?
I have spoken to a local M.D. Tax Assessor in regard to these concerns. I was told that these changes in land use and questions with regard to property tax are usually handled by a directive from Municipal Affairs. Failing that, it was suggested that any changes in tax assessment would likely be at the discretion of the individual assessor(s). It was agreed that the unique and somewhat biased benefits created by the HFH program to a few, select landowners might present an interesting challenge within M.D.’s. If the economic benefits of “selling” wildlife and/or access are greater than the economic benefits of agriculture, and especially if particular land titles can be identified, it would appear that land use could be reclassified from agricultural to recreational/commercial and the property tax could be adjusted to reflect the additional economic gains.
Evidently, Municipal Affairs, SRD and Fish & Wildlife had not given this any consideration and are currently consulting with their lawyers to provide answers.
Additionally, it was asked how revenues from the sale of HFH tags (a public trust) would be treated. It certainly appears that revenue would not qualify as Farm Income as the wildlife is not a farm asset (again a public trust). How would the income from the “sale” of a public trust be taxed outside of agricultural or farm income?
I will post the answers as (if) they become available. Regards, Mike
|