In Re the Appeal of Reeve Cattle Co.
392 P.3d 559
| Kan. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Reeve Cattle owns mixer‑feeder vehicles used on its Finney County feedlot to mix feed ingredients and deliver the prepared feed to cattle; they are rarely driven offsite and have limited speeds and width exceeding legal road limits.
- Finney County appraiser assessed escaped property taxes for 2013–2014 on the mixer‑feeders; Reeve Cattle paid under protest and appealed to the State Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA).
- Reeve Cattle argued the mixer‑feeders qualify as "farm machinery and equipment" exempt under K.S.A. 2015 Supp. 79‑201j and as implements of husbandry under K.S.A. 8‑126(p)(5).
- The County argued the mixer‑feeders meet the statutory definition of "truck" (K.S.A. 8‑126(nn))—expressly excluded from the exemption—because they deliver feed (freight/merchandise) and the definitions could overlap.
- BOTA found the mixer‑feeders are actually and regularly used in farming, do not meet the statutory definition of "truck," and are exempt under 79‑201j; the County sought reconsideration and judicial review, and the district court affirmed BOTA on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reeve Cattle) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mixer‑feeders are excluded from farm machinery exemption as "truck" under K.S.A. 8‑126(nn) | Mixer‑feeders are implements of husbandry and do not meet the statutory "truck" definition (not used to transport/deliver freight or >10 passengers) | Mixer‑feeders deliver feed (freight/merchandise) and therefore qualify as "truck," so they are excluded from the exemption | Held: Mixer‑feeders do not meet the "truck" definition; exemption applies |
| Whether BOTA's factual findings have substantial evidence support | N/A (relied on BOTA findings that trucks are used only on feedlot, mix feed, and carry <10 passengers) | Argues BOTA erred in factual finding that mixer‑feeders deliver feed only within feedlot and thus not freight | Held: BOTA's factual findings are supported by substantial evidence when viewed in whole record |
| Whether definitions in K.S.A. 8‑126(p)(5) and (nn) must be treated as mutually exclusive | Mixer‑feeders are classified by statute as implements of husbandry, precluding "truck" classification | Definitions can overlap; a vehicle could be both | Held: Court resolved case without deciding exclusivity—no need because mixer‑feeders fail truck definition in any event |
| Whether legislative silence precludes exemption absent explicit reference to mixer‑feeders in 79‑201j | Reeve Cattle contends broad exemption covers farm machinery used in feedlots; explicit carve‑outs exist elsewhere when needed | County contends legislature would have expressly exempted mixer‑feeders if intended | Held: Unpersuasive; statute's broad farm machinery exemption plus itemized exceptions support exemption without additional express mention |
Key Cases Cited
- Neighbor v. Westar Energy, Inc., 301 Kan. 916, 349 P.3d 469 (statutory interpretation is a question of law)
- Douglas v. Ad Astra Information Systems, 296 Kan. 552, 293 P.3d 723 (appellate courts need not defer to agency statutory interpretation)
- In re Tax Appeal of LaFarge Midwest, 293 Kan. 1039, 271 P.3d 732 (tax exemptions construed narrowly; courts not bound to agency interpretations)
- Sierra Club v. Moser, 298 Kan. 22, 310 P.3d 360 (substantial‑evidence review considers the whole record, both supporting and detracting evidence)
- Ullery v. Othick, 304 Kan. 405, 372 P.3d 1135 (use ordinary meaning of statutory words; resort to construction only if ambiguous)