TX 8712L0856B01 Sales and/or Use Tax (State,Local,MTA) 1987-12-15

Did a specially designed 60-by-100-foot building for processing, packing, and marketing an owner's vegetables qualify as exempt agricultural equipment?

Short answer: No. Texas said the building did not qualify as agricultural equipment. The historical exemption required exclusive qualifying use and a design so mechanically specialized that the structure functioned as equipment rather than an ordinary building; there was no predominant-use test.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1987. Ezel answers yours, under current Texas tax law, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1987
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is a taxpayer-specific December 1987 Texas Comptroller letter based on a proposed 60-by-100-foot vegetable-processing and packing building. It says the opinion may change if the facts differ. Rule 3.296(f)(8)(C), the exclusive-use requirement, and the distinction between an exempt item of agricultural equipment and a taxable building are historical and may have changed substantially; verify current law and the final structure's design and use. STAR documents may no longer represent current policy even when not marked superseded. Identities are redacted. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The agricultural producer proposed a 60-by-100-foot building for processing, packing, and marketing the producer's vegetables. It would have a sloped floor, drainage trough, and piping for processing water, and the requester said it could not economically serve another purpose.

The Comptroller nevertheless denied the agricultural-equipment exemption. The letter said a qualifying building had to be used exclusively for producing food for human consumption or exclusively for processing, packing, or marketing agricultural products; there was no predominant-use test.

It also had to be designed and built so mechanically and specifically that it effectively became equipment rather than a building usable for storage or shop space. Rule 3.296(f)(8)(C) gave automated laying houses, farrowing houses, and commercial greenhouses as examples.

What this means for you

Qualifying use alone did not establish the historical exemption. The structure also had to cross the letter's demanding design line from an ordinary building to an item functioning as agricultural equipment.

Common questions

Did the proposed vegetable building qualify? No.

Was predominant agricultural use enough? No. The letter said there was no predominant-use test and required exclusive qualifying use.

What design standard applied? The building had to be so mechanically specialized that it functioned as equipment rather than ordinary storage or shop space.

What examples did the rule give? Automated laying houses, farrowing houses, and commercial greenhouses.

Citations and references

  • 34 Tex. Admin. Code Rule 3.296(f)(8)(C) — historical agricultural-equipment provision cited for the building examples and exemption analysis.

Source

Original ruling text

COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
STATE OF TEXAS
AUSTIN, 78774

BOB BULLOCK
Comptroller December 15, 1987




Dear ***:

Thank you for your recent letter to Mrs. Hutcheson. Because she is no
longer in Tax Policy Division, I have been asked to respond.

FACTS:

I need a written opinion from you as to whether I am exempt from
paying a sales tax on a farm building. I live out in the country-
about 10 miles from the nearest town, Raymondville, Texas.

This building will be built for agricultural production only. I
will have a 2 inch slope on the floor designed for all the water
from processing and packing of fresh vegetables. It will drain
into a 3 inch trough built on one end of the building and it will
also have adequate piping to drain used water to a near-by ditch.
The building will be 60' X 100' and cannot be economically used
for any other purpose. The machinery and equipment will be used
by me, the original producer in the processing, packing and,
marketing of all my agricultural products.

DISCUSSION:

The taxability of buildings rests upon a determination of whether or not
they
are exclusively used in the production of food for human consumption or
exclusively used in processing, packing or marketing agricultural
products.
The law has no "predominant" use test. The building cannot be used for
any
other purpose.

It must be so specifically designed and built in such a mechanical way
that
it in essence becomes a piece of equipment rather than simply a building
which might be used for storage or shop space.

The examples given in Rule 3.296(f)(8)(c) are automated laying houses,
farrowing houses and commercial greenhouses.

CONCLUSION:

The building described in your fact situation does not qualify for
exemption
as an item of agricultural equipment. I am enclosing Rule 3.296 for your
reference.

This opinion is based on the facts presented. If there are additional or
different facts, the opinion may change.

If you have any questions or need more information, please call me at
1-800-252-5555 toll free from anywhere in Texas. The regular number is
512/463-4600. You may write me at the Tax Policy Division.

Sincerely,
AL Van Allen
Tax Policy Division

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1987 ruling on this question. Ezel checks current Texas tax law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.