Texas House Bill HJR107

Texas 2019 - 86th Regular

Caption

Proposing a constitutional amendment repealing the provision that subjects land designated for agricultural use to an additional tax when the land is diverted to a purpose other than agricultural use or sold.

Summary

HJR107 proposes a constitutional amendment to repeal a specific provision in the Texas Constitution that imposes an additional tax on land designated for agricultural use when it is diverted for other purposes or sold. This resolution aims to relieve agricultural landowners from what many view as an unfair tax burden, promoting the retention of agricultural land for its intended use. The repeal addresses the growing concern among farmers and landowners about the financial implications of transitioning their land to other uses, which may discourage necessary developments or changes in land use. The bill seeks to amend Section 1-d(f), Article VIII of the Texas Constitution. Supporters argue that the current tax policy disincentivizes landowners from making productive changes to their property, adversely affecting the agricultural community. By eliminating this tax liability, proponents believe the amendment will support landowners in managing their properties more flexibly, adapting to economic needs without additional financial penalties. HJR107 outlines a temporary provision with an effective date set for January 1, 2020, indicating that the changes will apply to tax years beginning on or after that date, thus providing a clear timeline for impacted parties. The necessary referendum to approve the amendment is scheduled for November 5, 2019, allowing voters to decide on this significant change in tax law. While the bill is largely welcomed by agricultural stakeholders, potential opposition may arise from those concerned about the impact on state revenue generated from such taxes. Critics may argue that repealing this provision could lead to decreases in tax income, affecting state-funded agricultural support initiatives in the long term. The discussions surrounding HJR107 indicate a balance between promoting agricultural growth and the state’s fiscal responsibilities.