rulings by filing an appeal with the circuit court. Both parties moved for summary judgment and following oral argument, the trial court concluded that while Taxpayer’s hatchery qualified for the “subsistence of livestock” exemption, none of Pilgrim Pride’s operation qualified for the “farm” exemption. See W.Va.Code § 11-3-9(a)(21), (28). Through this appeal, Pilgrim’s Pride seeks review of the trial court’s ruling. II. Standard of Review Because the parties have stipulated to the governing facts at issue in this case, the only question before us is legal in nature-the applicability of two statutory exemptions from ad valorem taxation. Accordingly, our review of this issue is de novo. See Syl. Pt. 1, Appalachian Power Co. v. State Tax Dep’t, 195 W.Va. 573, 466 S.E.2d 424 (1995) (<HOLDING>); see also Syl. Pt. 1, Painter v. Peavy, 192
holding that whether a statute affects sentencing is a question of law subject to de novo review holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review holding that interpreting a statute or an administrative rule or regulation presents a purely legal question subject to de novo review recognizing that the constitutionality of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review holding that whether a statute has been properly construed is a question of law subject to de novo review