In re Protests of Oakhill Land Co.

Florida resident Dale Barnhart (plaintiff) owned three companies that purchased multiple parcels of unimproved land near a golf course in Kansas. At the time of the purchases, the parcels were being used for agricultural purposes. While Barnhart attempted to get the properties rezoned for residential purposes, he claimed that the land was still being used for agricultural purposes, specifically to produce timber for eventual sale. Under Kansas law, land used for agricultural purposes was taxed based on the income it produced rather than its fair market value. One year, Barnhart claimed only $511 in agricultural income and paid taxes on that amount. The county tax assessor (defendant) reclassified Barnhart’s parcels as vacant land rather than agricultural land. As vacant land, the parcels were taxed on their fair market value, which increased Barnhart’s tax liability. Barnhart challenged this reclassification in the Kansas Court of Tax Appeals, claiming that the parcels still qualified as agricultural. Barnhart presented evidence that he had hired a local Kansas farmer to trim and cultivate walnut trees on the property. However, Barnhart had no firsthand knowledge of any actual tree work being performed on the parcels and did not call the farmer to testify. The Court of Tax Appeals ruled that Barnhart had not submitted persuasive evidence that agricultural activity was actually occurring on the parcels and upheld the vacant-land classification. Barnhart appealed to the Kansas Court of Appeals.