A push to address concerns that loopholes in Montana’s agricultural tax system allow luxury homes to claim benefits intended for working farms and ranches has fallen short, with the second of two bills advanced as potential reform measures this year failing on a 40-59 vote on the House floor Thursday.
That bill, House Bill 27 would have reworked the state tax code so it no longer automatically awards agricultural tax status to large properties without documented agricultural income. It also would have adjusted a policy that automatically grants a partial agricultural tax treatment to mid-size properties of at least 20 acres, instead classifying them as “idle” land if their owners don’t report income from farming or ranching.
The other bill, Senate Bill 4, would have changed tax calculations for land beneath homes on agricultural land to provide less tax benefit for lakefront parcels and other properties that would otherwise be taxed as high-value real estate. It was voted down by the Senate Taxation Committee Feb. 13.
Previous reporting by Montana Free Press and High Country News found that Montana’s current tax system allows thousands of million-dollar homes across the state to claim agricultural status, saving many of them hundreds or thousands of dollars a year versus what they would pay if taxed like most residential properties.
RELATED
Montana’s agricultural tax rules slash bills for thousands of million-dollar homes
Montana’s property tax code is designed to offer working farms and ranches lower land taxes than those paid on residential properties. An analysis by HCN and MTFP indicates there are thousands of high-end houses benefitting from ag treatment, paying reduced property taxes with the offset landing on other taxpayers. While some lawmakers want to tighten the qualification requirements during the 2025 Legislature, those measures face tough odds because stripping agriculture tax status from current beneficiaries would mean forcing them to pay more.
One of those properties is Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte’s Bozeman home, where an agricultural designation means Gianforte pays an effective land tax rate that is about 1/144 what a neighbor is paying across the street. (The governor’s office has said his family’s land is used for barley and alfalfa production and to board horses and mules.)
Both bills were supported by the Montana Department of Revenue, which developed them through a stakeholder working group convened after bills trying to address the issue failed to pass the Legislature in 2023. Gianforte’s Lieutenant Governor, Kristen Juras, also testified in support of HB 27 at a February committee hearing.
As HB 27 came up for debate on the House floor Thursday, however, it stalled amid opposition from lawmakers who said they couldn’t stomach voting for a potential tax increase.
“Our constituents sent us up here with a mandate to lower property taxes. House Bill 27 will raise taxes for a vast number of Montanans and drive Montanans off their land,” said Rep. Jedediah Hinkle, R-Belgrade.
Supporters argued that any property owner able to document $1,500 a year or more in agricultural income would be allowed to maintain an agricultural status, meaning their taxes would be unaffected. Combined with an option to claim a property as a subsistence farm, they said, that approach would direct agricultural tax benefits only to taxpayers who are actually farming or ranching.
“For too long, we’ve seen speculators buy up thousands of acres, take them out of production and turn them into their personal playgrounds — all while paying a fraction of their fair share in property tax,” argued Rep. Sherry Essmann, R-Billings, the bill’s sponsor.
“If you’re engaged in production ag, you should get the production rate. If you’re not engaged in production ag, you should not get the ag rate,” said Rep. Mark Thane, D-Missoula. The current law, he argued, produces a “tax system that’s not necessarily fair and equitable.”
The other bill, sponsored by Sen. Becky Beard, R-Elliston, was voted down 2-6 by the Senate Taxation Committee, following a discussion last month where both the committee’s senior Republicans and Democrats said they were worried about imposing a sudden tax hike on certain taxpayers.
RELATED
Lawmakers ponder bills aimed at narrowing ag property tax loopholes
A pair of bills aimed at closing loopholes that may make it too easy for Montana property owners to qualify for hefty property tax benefits intended for farms and ranches got their initial hearings before the Montana Legislature this week, drawing hours of commentary from supporters and opponents.
“I like the intent of it, but I think some folks will really see some increases that will make it very difficult for them, so I’m going to oppose the bill,” said Sen. Dave Fern, D-Whitefish.
Senate Taxation Chair Greg Hertz, R-Polson, said he agreed. “I see this raising taxes significantly on some small agricultural land and providing the rest of us with maybe a dollar reduction in our property taxes,” he said.
Under current law, properties of 160 acres or more are automatically classified as agricultural, which means the land, excluding any structures, is valued for tax purposes based not on how much it would sell for but rather how much money its owner could theoretically earn farming or ranching. Smaller properties can qualify for the agricultural designation if they demonstrate at least $1,500 a year in farm or ranch income, a threshold that hasn’t been updated since the 1980s.
The defeat of the two bills means the law is likely to stay unchanged through this year’s legislative session. Other tax relief proposals generally focus on the residential portion of the property tax code while leaving the agricultural side untouched. For example, a Gianforte-backed bill that aims to lower taxes on primary residences by, in part, raising them on second homes explicitly exempts homes on agricultural land from its proposed tax rate shifts.
LATEST STORIES
Flint, Forstag in dead heat for House seat
Aaron Flint and Sam Forstag appear to be in a dead heat for Montana’s Western District House race, according to a Montana Free Press-Rutgers Eagleton poll.
Train derails in Shelby, authorities say ‘no immediate danger’
The Toole County Sheriff’s Office said on social media that the office received reports of a multi-car derailment on tracks close to town.
Major Forest Service policies could be changing. Here’s what’s at stake.
The U.S. Forest Service is proposing changes to the Roadless Rule and Travel Management Rule that could alter how roads, motorized travel and recreation are managed across millions of acres of national forest land. The changes could have significant implications for public access, conservation and land management.
