Lathrop v. Board of Tax Review

559 A.2d 1160, 18 Conn. App. 608, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 188
CourtConnecticut Appellate Court
DecidedJune 13, 1989
Docket6756
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 559 A.2d 1160 (Lathrop v. Board of Tax Review) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lathrop v. Board of Tax Review, 559 A.2d 1160, 18 Conn. App. 608, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 188 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Spallone, J.

The plaintiff appeals from the judgment rendered after the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff, Diana M. Lathrop, inherited certain land upon the death of her husband, Robert H. Lathrop. At the time of his death on September 10,1982, the land was classified as “open space” land for purposes of tax exemptions afforded under General Statutes § 12-107e1 and had [610]*610been so classified for more than ten years prior to his death. On October 24, 1983, a year after she had acquired title, the plaintiff applied for and was granted classification of the land as open space.

On September 17, 1986, the plaintiff sold a portion of the land for $275,000. The assessor for the town of Lyme determined that the plaintiff had sold the land during the third year of her ownership and, pursuant [611]*611to the provisions of General Statutes § 12-504a (a),2 assessed an 8 percent conveyance tax of $22,000, which the plaintiff paid under protest. The plaintiff appealed to the defendant board of tax review, requesting the return of the tax paid. The board denied relief, and the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. The defendant moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion, ruling in its memorandum of decision that a “new [open space land] classification was begun in [the plaintiff’s] name on October 24, 1983, when she applied for and was granted such classification.” The court held that the plaintiff could not “utilize [the provisions of] General Statutes § 12-504c (k) to ‘tack’ onto the time period during which her husband held the land as open space.” The plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment rendered in favor of the defendant.

[612]*612The question before the trial court was whether, on the basis of the undisputed facts and the applicable statutes, the plaintiff was required to pay a conveyance tax on the September 1986 sale of a portion of her property. We agree with the trial court that she was.

General Statutes § 12-504a (a) provides in pertinent part that “[a]ny land which has been classified by the record owner thereof as open space land pursuant to section 12-107e, if sold by him within a period often years from the time he first caused such land to be so classified, shall be subject to a conveyance tax applicable to the total sales price of such land . . . (Emphasis added.) In East Village Associates, Inc. v. Monroe, 173 Conn. 328, 333, 377 A.2d 1092 (1977), our Supreme Court held that § 12-504a was intended to apply prospectively and that the tax would therefore be applicable if both classification and sale of the land occurred after October 1, 1972, the effective date of that statute. It is undisputed that the plaintiff, the record owner of the land, applied for and was granted classification of the land as “open space land” on October 24,1983, and that the plaintiff sold a portion of that “open space land” within ten years from the time she caused it.to be.so classified. It is therefore clear that the conveyance tax imposed by General Statutes § 12-504a (a) was properly assessed against her.

The plaintiff claims that the trial court erred in ruling that General Statutes § 12-504c (k)3 does not [613]*613exempt her from the tax.4 We disagree. General Statutes § 12-504c specifically describes those transfers of land that are deemed nontaxable events for purposes of determining taxability under § 12-504a. Section 12-504c (k) provides that the provisions of § 12-504a shall not be applicable to “property transferred as a result of death by devise or otherwise.” The trial court [614]*614correctly concluded that this section does not exempt the plaintiff from paying the conveyance tax imposed by the assessor for the town of Lyme pursuant to § 12-504a. The property involved in this case was not “transferred as a result of death by devise or otherwise”; rather, the property was transferred by sale. Thus, § 12-504c (k) does not apply, and the tax was properly assessed pursuant to § 12-504a.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stepney Pond Estates, Ltd. v. Town of Monroe
797 A.2d 494 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2002)
Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Board of Tax Review
623 A.2d 1027 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1993)
Lathrop v. Board of Tax Review
565 A.2d 536 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
559 A.2d 1160, 18 Conn. App. 608, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lathrop-v-board-of-tax-review-connappct-1989.