Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 32 Chapter 124
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 3755 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 001 : AGRICULTURAL LAND AND MANAGED FORESTLAND USE VALUE APPRAISAL PROGRAM

(Cite as: 32 V.S.A. § 3755)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2002–2016 · leading case: Plum Creek Maine Timberlands, LLC v. Vermont Dep't of Forests, Parks & Rec. & Vermont Dep't of Taxes, 2016 VT 103 (Vt. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Plum Creek Maine Timberlands, LLC v. Vermont Dep't of Forests, Parks & Rec. & Vermont Dep't of Taxes, 2016 VT 103 (Vt. 2016). · cites it 4× “See 32 V.S.A. § 3755(b), (b)(1) (providing that “[m]anaged forestland” must be “subject to a forest management plan” to be eligible for enrollment in UVA program).”
Jones v. Dep't of Forests, Parks & Rec., 2004 VT 49 (Vt. 2004). · cites it 3× “” The finding overlooks the fact that the Joneses’ entire parcel would have been removed from the UVA program upon the filing of an adverse inspection report for nonconformance with the plan under 32 V.SA. §§ 3755(b)(3) and 3756®, and they could not have taken advantage of the…”
Town of Victory v. State, 814 A.2d 369 (Vt. 2002). “32 V.S.A. §§ 3755(b), (c), 3756(f). Furthermore, 32 V.”
Mollica v. Div. of Prop. Valuation & Review, 2008 VT 60 (Vt. 2008). “” 32 V.S.A. § 3755(a). “[0]ur rule that tax statutes should be strictly construed against the party claiming exemption must be tempered by the paramount concern that statutes be construed ‘reasonably so as not to defeat their purpose.”
Jones v. Dept. of Forests, Parks & Rec., 2004 VT 49 (Vt. 2004). · cites it 3× “" The finding overlooks the fact that the Joneses' entire parcel would have been removed from the UVA program upon the filing of an adverse inspection report for nonconformance with the plan under 32 V.S.A. §§ 3755(b)(3) and 3756(i), and they could not have taken advantage of…”
Labrie v. Vermont Dep't of Taxes (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 2× ““[F]arm is used in its ordinary, accepted sense and includes stock, dairy, poultry, fish, fruit, and truck farms, and also plantations, ranches, ranges, and orchards.”
Goodrum v. State of Vermont (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). “32 V.S.A. § 3755. Whether THF qualifies as a “farmer” is the central dispute in this matter.”
Moore Accessory Structure Permit (Vt. Super. Ct. 2010). “These changes also must be compatible with 32 V.S.A. § 3755. 2003, No. 115(Adj. Sess.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 3755(a) — 1 case
Mollica v. Div. of Prop. Valuation & Review, 2008 VT 60 (Vt. 2008). “” 32 V.S.A. § 3755(a). “[0]ur rule that tax statutes should be strictly construed against the party claiming exemption must be tempered by the paramount concern that statutes be construed ‘reasonably so as not to defeat their purpose.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 3755(b) — 2 cases
Plum Creek Maine Timberlands, LLC v. Vermont Dep't of Forests, Parks & Rec. & Vermont Dep't of Taxes, 2016 VT 103 (Vt. 2016). “See 32 V.S.A. § 3755(b), (b)(1) (providing that “[m]anaged forestland” must be “subject to a forest management plan” to be eligible for enrollment in UVA program).”
Town of Victory v. State, 814 A.2d 369 (Vt. 2002). “32 V.S.A. §§ 3755(b), (c), 3756(f). Furthermore, 32 V.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 3755(b)(3) — 2 cases
Jones v. Dep't of Forests, Parks & Rec., 2004 VT 49 (Vt. 2004). “” The finding overlooks the fact that the Joneses’ entire parcel would have been removed from the UVA program upon the filing of an adverse inspection report for nonconformance with the plan under 32 V.SA. §§ 3755(b)(3) and 3756®, and they could not have taken advantage of the…”
Jones v. Dept. of Forests, Parks & Rec., 2004 VT 49 (Vt. 2004). “" The finding overlooks the fact that the Joneses' entire parcel would have been removed from the UVA program upon the filing of an adverse inspection report for nonconformance with the plan under 32 V.S.A. §§ 3755(b)(3) and 3756(i), and they could not have taken advantage of…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 3755(c) — 3 cases
Plum Creek Maine Timberlands, LLC v. Vermont Dep't of Forests, Parks & Rec. & Vermont Dep't of Taxes, 2016 VT 103 (Vt. 2016). “See 32 V.S.A. § 3755(b), (b)(1) (providing that “[m]anaged forestland” must be “subject to a forest management plan” to be eligible for enrollment in UVA program).”
Jones v. Dep't of Forests, Parks & Rec., 2004 VT 49 (Vt. 2004). “” The finding overlooks the fact that the Joneses’ entire parcel would have been removed from the UVA program upon the filing of an adverse inspection report for nonconformance with the plan under 32 V.SA. §§ 3755(b)(3) and 3756®, and they could not have taken advantage of the…”
Jones v. Dept. of Forests, Parks & Rec., 2004 VT 49 (Vt. 2004). “" The finding overlooks the fact that the Joneses' entire parcel would have been removed from the UVA program upon the filing of an adverse inspection report for nonconformance with the plan under 32 V.S.A. §§ 3755(b)(3) and 3756(i), and they could not have taken advantage of…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 3755(e) — 1 case
Labrie v. Vermont Dep't of Taxes (Vt. Super. Ct. 2014). ““[F]arm is used in its ordinary, accepted sense and includes stock, dairy, poultry, fish, fruit, and truck farms, and also plantations, ranches, ranges, and orchards.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.