In a tax appeal, a County Board of Tax Assessors moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. On an interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment because there remained a question of fact as to whether the sources of income satisfied the statutory requirement for qualification as a family-owned farm entity.
[D]id Oliver “derive 80 percent or more of its gross income from bona fide conservation uses, including earnings on investments directly related to past or future bona fide conservation uses, within the state within the year immediately preceding the year in which eligibility is sought[?]” OCGA § 48-5-7.4 (a) (1) (C) (iv). There are several components to that question, including the percent and source of funds, their sourcing from bona fide conservation uses, determinations of relatedness to past or future bona fide conservation uses, and temporal considerations.
[. . .]
Only if the funds used to purchase the income-producing asset (either in whole or in part) were derived from bona fide agricultural uses could the asset even arguably be considered an “investment” directly related to a past or future bona fide conservation use. And it is only after that question is answered that we could fully consider whether its income could be considered “earnings on investments directly related to past or future bona fide conservation uses” as described in the statute.
