Facts
[C.A.] , who passed away on March 12, 2017, was married to [D.A.] , who had predeceased him on November 2, 2010. Both the estate of [C.A.] and the estate of [D.A.] consist of their three children, [A.A.] , [B.A.] , and [A.B.] . The joint property of the estate of [C.A.] includes six parcels of land, forest, and a built-up area of 1'344.20 a. The agricultural operation is leased to the testator's grandson, [B.B.] . The joint property of the estate of [D.A.] consists of ten parcels of land, forest, and an unbuilt area of 765.31 a. Seven of these parcels were already cultivated during the lifetime of the testatrix together with the real estate and agricultural operation of her husband [C.A.] and are also leased to [B.B.] .
[A.A.] and [B.A.] as well as [A.B.] and [B.B.] filed applications with the Agricultural Office of the Canton of Thurgau to determine whether the joint property of the estates constituted an agricultural enterprise within the meaning of the RLRA. The Agricultural Office determined that the joint property of the estate of [C.A.] was an agricultural enterprise, while the joint property of the estate of [D.A.] alone did not constitute an agricultural enterprise.
[A.A.] and [B.A.] appealed against the decision of the Agricultural Office. The Appeals Commission for Agricultural Matters dismissed the appeal. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Thurgau confirmed the decision of the Appeals Commission.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court overturns the decision of the Administrative Court and determines that the agricultural operation of the estate of [C.A.] is not an agricultural enterprise within the meaning of the RLRA.
Although the calculations show that the operation requires 0.938 standard…