State Tax Commission of Missouri
GH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,)
GREEN HILLS COMMUNITY)
ACTION AGENCY,)
)
Complainants,)
)
v.)
)
BEVERLY ALDEN, ASSESSOR, )
CALDWELL COUNTY, MISSOURI, )Appeal Nos.10-46000 – 10-46004
)
BETTY HARMISON, ASSESSOR, )
DAVIESS COUNTY, MISSOURI, )Appeal No.10-54503
)
STEVEN RIPLEY, ASSESSOR, )
LIVINGSTON COUNTY, MISSOURI, )Appeal Nos.10-67001 – 10-67016
)
PAUL ROUSE, ASSESSOR, )
PUTNAM COUNTY, MISSOURI, )Appeal No.10-80500
)
KAREN LAFAVER, ASSESSOR, )
SULLIVAN COUNTY, MISSOURI, )Appeal No.10-89000 & 10-89001
)
Respondents.)
ORDER
OVERRULING HEARING OFFICER DECISION
UPON APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
On August 9, 2012, Senior Hearing Officer W. B. Tichenor entered his Decision and Order (Decision) setting aside the determination that the properties were not tax exempt and the assessments by the Assessors, sustained by the individual County Boards of Equalization.
Respondent filed an Application for Review of the Decision.[1]Complainant filed its Brief in Opposition.[2]Respondent filed its Reply.[3]
The Hearing Officer’s Decision is SET ASIDE.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DECISION
Respondent’s Grounds for Application
Respondent puts forth alleged errors in the Decision and reasons why the property should not be tax exempt.The Respondents’ argument is the Hearing Officer erred by finding the use of the property charitable in that:
1. The decision does not comply with the findings in Community Park Village v. State Tax Commission, [4]in that there is no evidence that low and moderate income housing will lessen the burden to government; or
2. There was no evidence that the use of the property and the services provided brings hearts under the influence of education or religion; relieves the body from disease, suffering or constraint; or assists people to establish themselves for life.Section 137.100(5), RSMo
In order for a property owner to meet their burden in an appeal seeking exemption from taxation, the Complainant must meet the substantial burden to establish that the property falls within an exempted class under the provisions of Section 137.100.[5]It is well established that taxation is the rule and exemption from taxation is the exception.Exemption is not favored in the law.[6]
Complainant seeks exemption of its property from taxation pursuant to Section 137.100(5):
The following subjects are exempt from taxation for state, county or local purposes:
****
(5) All property, real and personal, actually and regularly used exclusively for … purposes purely charitable and not held for private or corporate profit, except that the
exemption herein granted does not include real property not actually used or occupied
for the purpose of the organization but held or used as investment even though the
income or rentals received therefore is used wholly for — charitable purposes;
Taxes are not penalties but are contributions which all inhabitants are expected to make for the support of the activities of government.Every person and parcel of property receives protection and services.When any one fails to contribute to the cost of the protection and services, the others must contribute more than their share.Therefore, any institution by its charitable activities that relieves the government of a burden should be given a quid pro quo for its services.
Franciscan Tertiary Test
In meeting its burden of proof that the subject property is used “exclusively for … purposes purely charitable, and not held for private or corporate profit….”Complainants must
meet the three prong test set forth by the Missouri Supreme Court in Franciscan Tertiary Province v. STC.[7]
The three tests to be met under Franciscan are stated as follows for purposes of this Decision and Order:
1.Property must be owned and operated on a not-for-profit basis;
2.Property must be actually and regularly used exclusively for a charitable purpose; and
3.Property must be used for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons and for society in general, directly or indirectly.
The initial Franciscan requirement is that to receive exempt status the property must be owned on a not-for-profit basis.The parties have stipulated that GHCD and GHCAA are both incorporated as not-for-profit entities under the laws of the state of Missouri.Therefore, the subject properties are owned on a not-for-profit basis.
The Respondents argue that the property could be potentially held for a future profit in that the Complainants entered into agreement in which loans for the properties will be forgiven upon expiration of terms of the agreement.There is no evidence that Complainants have developed the subject properties and are simply holding them for future disposal to generate profits.[8]Further in Pentecostal, the court found that a property could be exempt even if the owners would receive the title to the property free and clear upon the completion of the agreement with HUD.
Used for Charitable Purpose
The Respondent argues that it is not being used for charitable purposes in that under Community Park Village v. State Tax Commission the court found that housing for low and moderate income alone is insufficient to find the use of the property to be charitable.Courts must also find that the property will benefit society or that there are services of moral, social or religious activities.
Benefit to Society: Community Park Village v. State Tax Commission
Complainant Green Hills Community Action Agency (NP-5832) was originally organized in 1965 as a 501(c)(3) to provide services to low income individuals and families in Grundy, Sullivan,Putnam and Mercer Counties.Nothing contained within the exhibits supplied by Complainant allow GHCAA to provide moderate income housing.In 2008, Complainant’s by laws were amended to allow Complainant to provide services in Caldwell, Daviess, Grundy, Harrison, Linn, Livingston, Mercer, Putnam and Sullivan Counties.
In 1997[9] Green Hills Community Development Corporation (N00056825) was formed as a 501(c)(4) corporation to provide services to low and moderate income families and individuals.This Complainant (GHDC) also serves Caldwell, Daviess, Grundy, Harrison, Linn, Livingston, Mercer, Putnam and Sullivan Counties.Contrary to Complainant’s assertion, there is no indication in the original articles of incorporation or Exhibit 5 and Exhibit 6, that GHDC is a subsidiary of GHCAA.However, at least half of this corporation’s board of directors must be made up of directors from GHCAA[10], so there is an association between the entities.No one officially employed by GHDC testified at the evidentiary hearing, but from Respondent’s exhibits, there is indication that Don Warren acted as Executive Director of GHDC during the execution of the some of the agreements between that organization and the Missouri Housing Development Corporation as well as executing document on behalf of GHCAA.
It appears that GHCAA, who is only supposed to rent to low income individuals or families, was grantor in the loans for the properties identified as 324 Elm Street (Parcel No. 06-07.00-36-3-45-01.00), 325 Cherry Street (Parcel No. 06-07.00-36-3.43-03.00), 400 Bridge Street (Parcel No. 07-09.00-31-3-06-02.01), 717 St. Louis Street (Parcel No. 07-09.00-313-3-06-02.00), 1309 Directory Street (Parcel No. 06-07.00-35-4-16-09.02), 600 Woodward Street and 602 Woodward Street (Parcel No. 06-07.00-36-4-20-05.00), all in Chillicothe, Missouri.[11]
From the documents supplied by Respondent, it appears that GHDC was the grantor in most of the transactions with the Missouri Housing Development Corporation.[12]Thus, the vast majority of the properties currently under appeal are owned by a corporation which can rent to moderate income individuals or families.Providing reduced rental rates for moderate income individuals has never been found to be a charitable use of property.
The creation of a nonprofit corporation to take advantage of available federal legislation to provide low cost housing for individuals without substantial income is a commendable activity.However, housing provided at below market level rents as a result of federally funded construction or rental subsidies which funding has been designed to cover the costs of the housing, has not been found to be charitable.The provider of such housing is not relieving the government of a burden when they are using government funding to construct the dwelling and in paying the monthly costs of the dwelling.Further, low and moderate income families are not necessarily or automatically charitable entities.
In Community Park, housing was provided for low and moderate income families.The tenants were required to meet housing income guidelines set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The apartments were occupied by faculty and students at Lincoln University.The rents charged were substantially below market rents.The housing was operated similarly to conventional rentals in that tenants were expected to pay rent and would be evicted if they did not.
The Western District Court of Appeals concluded that exemption was not warranted in that the property was not deemed charitable on the ground that the sole and exclusive benefit to tenants was reduced rent.Community Park provided no social, moral or religious activities.The Court also found that there would be no burden to society if such housing was not provided in that if Community Park did not exist, the residents would not likely become public charges.[13]In Franciscan, the court found that the residents likely would become public charges without the additional assistance.
This distinction is critical to the instant case.As the court found in Community Park:
The third element of the test, the benefit to society generally, is closely aligned to the first but relates to the impact on the public at large. It is not enough that the benefits relieve burdens from those directly participating, society as well must gain. The use of the property taken from the tax rolls must relieve some public obligation as by reducing the likelihood that persons will become public charges or will be forced into living conditions conducive to increasing society’s problems. In some measure, the third element extracts a quid pro quo in consideration for tax relief.[14]
The justification for a charitable exemption is that the organization providing the benefit to individuals is taking upon itself some function that government would otherwise need to provide.Thus, the public foregoes otherwise public funds so that destitute people may receive care.Historically, government has not provided housing for moderate income individuals and Complainants have failed to demonstrate that their residents would likely become public charges without additional assistance.
The Complainants undertook such activities without concern to profit and such services are beneficial to the community.However, not all laudable activities are charitable under the meaning of Section 137.100, RSMo.There was no showing that any of the residents were infirm, suffering or could not find alternative housing.There was nothing in the record to establish that the residents were permitted to occupy the housing without payment of the established rents. While the value of adequate housing should not be underestimated and the program enables the residents to enjoy a quality of housing which they could not otherwise afford, the residents are not objects of charity.
Complainants argue that they provide many laudable services for the community. The Complainants failed to establish any nexus between the properties they lease for housing and the properties that provide services to the community. (Complainant’s administrative properties which do provide those services are already tax exempt.) In other words, we cannot say that “the use of the [subject] properties”, as discussed in Community Park, has any direct relation to the provision of these additional services by the taxpayers.The fact that the taxpayers own these particular rental properties in no way furthers the provision of the Complainants’ services to the community.
There is no demonstration that the use of the subject properties benefits society as a whole.There was no evidence that the public is relieved of any expense in comparison with the loss of tax revenue.
Conclusion
The fact that an organization has a 501(c)(3) certification does not automatically
grant it a right to a property tax exemption. The fact that an organization has a 501(c)(4) designation does not grant it a right to a property tax exemption. The fact that an organization works with the Missouri Housing Development Commission does not grant it a right to a property tax exemption.Nor is the fact that someone at MHDC thought these properties should be exempt, binding on the Tax Commission. There is no case law in Missouri which has ever granted an exemption to an agency providing housing to moderate income individuals.
The subject properties failed to meet the three tests set forth by the Franciscan holding and accordingly are not exempt from ad valorem taxation under §137.100, RSMo.
ORDER
The burden of proof as to entitlement to exemption is upon the persons claiming that exemption.Complainants have failed to meet their burden of proof as to any of their properties and the Hearing Officer erred when he found that they were entitled to exemptions on their properties.
Judicial review of this Order may be had in the manner provided in Sections 138.432 and 536.100 to 536.140, RSMo within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service for this Order.
If judicial review of this decision is made, any protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accordance with this appeal shall be held pending the final decision of the courts unless disbursed pursuant to Section 139.031.8, RSMo.
If no judicial review is made within thirty days, this decision and order is deemed final and the Collector ofCounties, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall disburse the protested taxes presently in an escrow account in accord with the decision on the underlying assessment in this appeal.
SO ORDERED December 20, 2012.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
Bruce E. Davis, Chairman
Randy B. Holman, Commissioner
DECISION AND ORDER
HOLDING
Assessments by Assessors that subject properties were not tax exempt were sustained by the individual County Boards of Equalization.Hearing Officer finds subject properties to be exempt under Section 137.100(5), assessments SET ASIDE.
Complainants appeared by Counsel, Benjamin D. Miles, The Miles Law Firm LLC, Kansas City, Missouri.
Respondents appeared by Counsel, Matthew J. Aplington, Lowenbaum Partnership LLC, Clayton, Missouri.
Case heard and decided by Senior Hearing Officer, W. B. Tichenor.
ISSUE
The Commission takes these appeals to determine whether the subject properties are exempt from taxation under Section 137.100(5), RSMo for 2010.
SUMMARY
Complainants appeal the various decisions of the individual County Boards of Equalization.The individual Respondents assessed the subject properties as residential properties.The assessments were sustained by the individual Boards of Equalization.Complainants contend that the subject properties are exempt from taxation under the provisions of Section 137.100(5).The Hearing Officer, having considered all of the competent evidence upon the whole record and the Briefs filed by the parties, enters the following Decision and Order.
FACTS
1. Jurisdiction.Jurisdiction over these appeals are proper.Complainants timely appealed to the State Tax Commission from the decisions of the individual County Boards of Equalization.
2. Hearing and Briefs.A hearing was conducted on October 16, 2011, at the Livingston County Courthouse, Chillicothe, Missouri.Transcript received by the Commission 1/17/12.Complainants’ Brief was received by the Commission 2/17/12.Respondents’ Brief
was received by the Commission 3/21/12.Complainants’ Response was received by the Commission 4/11/12.
3. Subject Properties.The subject properties are identified by the following addresses and map parcel numbers:[15]
Caldwell County Properties.
A. The subject property in Appeal 10-46000 is located at 409 West 6th, Hamilton, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 03-6-13-3-07-4.00.
B. The subject property in Appeal 10-46001 is located at 504 N. Gallatin, Hamilton, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 03-6-13-3-07-4.01.
C. The subject property in Appeal 10-46002 is located at 407 Samuel, Hamilton, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 03-6-13-3-07-4.02.
D. The subject property in Appeal 10-46003 is located at 301 E. 7th Street and 704 Ewing, Hamilton, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 03-6-13-3-02-19.00.
E. The subject property in Appeal 10-46004 is located at 701 and 703 N. Ritchie, Hamilton, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 03-6-13-3-02-4.00.
Daviess County Property
The subject property in Appeal 10-54503 is located at 1213 and 1215 S. Willow, and 201 Elm, Gallatin, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 15-4.2-20-3-11-16.
Livingston County Properties
A. The subject property in Appeal 10-67001 is located at 400 Bridge, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 07-09.00-31-3-06-02.01.
B. The subject property in Appeal 10-67002 is located at 717 St. Louis, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 07-09.00-31-3-06-02.00.
C. The subject property in Appeal 10-67003 is located at 1309 Directory, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-35-4-16-09.02.
D. The subject property in Appeal 10-67004 is located at 600 and 602 Woodward, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-36-4-20-05.00.
E. The subject property in Appeal 10-67005 is located at 10 St. Paul, 100 Mitchell, and 200 Milwaukee, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 11-01.00-01-1-12-05.00.
F. The subject property in Appeal 10-67006 is located at 104 Virginia, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 11-01.00-02-0.00-48.00.
G. The subject property in Appeal 10-67007 is located at 501 Peacher, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-35-3-08-08.00.
H. The subject property in Appeal 10-67008 is located at 1729 Clay, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-35-3-08-08.01.
I. The subject property in Appeal 10-67009 is located at 116 JF Kennedy, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-36-1-30-02.00.
J. The subject property in Appeal 10-67010 is located at 505 Peacher, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-36-2-19-08.00.
K. The subject property in Appeal 10-67011 is located at 1020 Walnut, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-36-3-07-20.00.
L. The subject property in Appeal 10-67012 is located at 1113 Cooper, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-36-2-19-01.00.
M. The subject property in Appeal 10-67013 is located at 1021 Clay, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-36-3-24-05.00.
N. The subject property in Appeal 10-67014 is located at 324 Elm, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-36-3-45-01.00.
O. The subject property in Appeal 10-67015 is located at 325 Cherry, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 06-07.00-36-3-43-03.00.
P. The subject property in Appeal 10-67016 is located at 100 Virginia, Chillicothe, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 11-01.00-02-0.00-49.00.
Putnam County Property
The subject property in Appeal 10-80500 is located at 2207 Birch, 905 and 907 S. 23rd, Unionville, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 1802030010110102.
Sullivan County Properties
A. The subject property in Appeal 10-89000 is located at 1014 South Rice Street, Milan, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 13-2-10-1-07-02.00.
B. The subject property in Appeal 10-89001 is located at 1016 South Rice Street, Milan, Missouri.It is identified by map parcel number 13-2-10-2-07-02.04.
4. Assessments.The subject properties were assessed by the respective Assessor as follows and said assessments[16] were sustained by the respective county Boards of Equalization.[17]
Caldwell County Properties
A. The subject property in Appeal 10-46000 was appraised at $82,840, residential assessed value of $15,740.
B. The subject property in Appeal 10-46001 was appraised at $79,640, residential assessed value of $15,130.
C. The subject property in Appeal 10-46002 was appraised at $79,820, residential assessed value of $15,170.
D. The subject property in Appeal 10-46003 was appraised at$173,910, residential assessed value of $33,040.
E. The subject property in Appeal 10-46004 was appraised at $204,990, residential assessed value of $38,950.
Daviess County Property
The subject property in Appeal 10-54503 was appraised at $204,710, residential assessed value of $38,895.
Livingston County Properties
A. The subject property in Appeal 10-67001 was appraised at $75,840, residential assessed value of $14,410.
B. The subject property in Appeal 10-67002 was appraised at $75,840, residential assessed value of $14,410.
C. The subject property in Appeal 10-67003 was appraised at $74,100, residential assessed value of $14,080.
D. The subject property in Appeal 10-67004 was appraised at $123,890, residential assessed value of $23,540.
E. The subject property in Appeal 10-67005 was appraised at $224,100, residential assessed value of $42,580.
F. The subject property in Appeal 10-67006 was appraised at $89,890, residential assessed value of $17,080.
G. The subject property in Appeal 10-67007 was appraised at $94,580, residential assessed value of $17,970.
H. The subject property in Appeal 10-67008 was appraised at $159,840, residential assessed value of $30,370.
I. The subject property in Appeal 10-67009 was appraised at $6,260, residential
assessed value of $1,190.
J. The subject property in Appeal 10-67010 was appraised at $5,000, residential assessed value of $950.
K. The subject property in Appeal 10-67011 was appraised at $79,530, residential assessed value of $15,110.
L. The subject property in Appeal 10-67012 was appraised at $77,420, residential assessed value of $14,710.
M. The subject property in Appeal 10-67013 was appraised at $94,050, residential assessed value of $17,870.
N. The subject property in Appeal 10-67014 was appraised at $24,890, residential assessed value of $4,730.
O. The subject property in Appeal 10-67015 was appraised at $32,050, residential assessed value of $6,090.
P. The subject property in Appeal 10-67016 was appraised at $89,890, residential assessed value of $17,080.
Putnam County Property
The subject property in Appeal 10-80500 was appraised at $266,450, residential assessed value of $50,625.
Sullivan County Properties
A. The subject property in Appeal 10-89000 was appraised at $48,500, residential assessed value of $9,210.
B. The subject property in Appeal 10-89001 was appraised at $48,400, residential assessed value of $9,200.
5. Stipulation.On July 15, 2011, the Parties filed their Stipulation as to uncontested facts.Said Stipulation was incorporated by reference into the record at the evidentiary hearing as if read out in full.[18]The parties STIPULATED and AGREED as follows:
A. Green Hills Community Action Agency, formerly known as The Green Hills Area Human Resource Development Corporation (“GHCAA”) was formed June 4, 1965 as a not for profit corporation under the laws of the state of Missouri.
B. The Bylaws of GHCAA and Articles of Incorporation of GHCAA, as amended, list as its purposes, inter alia:
1. To empower low-income individuals and families to enable them to become self-sufficient.
2. Raise awareness in the local community of the challenges low income individuals and families face.
3. Provide services and assistance to low income individuals and families which will attempt to alleviate their poverty.
4. Promote better housing options and improved economic conditions for low income families.
5. To develop and manage housing for low income families.
C. A determination has been made by the Internal Revenue Service that GHCAA is exempt from federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code and is considered a 501(c) (3) corporation.
D. GH Community Development Corp., now known as Green Hill Community Development, a Missouri non-profit corporation (“GHCD”) was formed June 23, 1997 as a non-profit corporation under the laws of the State of Missouri.
E. The Bylaws of GHCD and Articles of Incorporation of GHCD, as amended, list as it (sic – its) purposes, inter alia:
1. To develop, own, manage and provide affordable housing to low and moderate income individuals.
2. To develop facilities which provides services to low and moderate income persons.
F. A determination has been made by the Internal Revenue Service that GHCD is exempt from federal income tax under the Internal Revenue Code and is consider a 501(c) (4) corporation.
G. GHCAA and GHCD serve the low and moderate income individuals and families of Caldwell, Daviess, Livingston, Putnam and Sullivan Counties by offering reduced rate rental housing to certain individuals and families who meet the income restriction guidelines established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Missouri Housing Development Commission
H. For each of the properties at issue in these appeals, the spreadsheet attached hereto as Exhibit A accurately sets forth the following information:
1. The number and age of all occupants
2. The household income and source thereof
3. A summary of the assets of the occupants, and
4. The amount of monthly rent paid by the occupants.
6. Complainants’ Exhibits.The Complainants filed and exchanged the following exhibits, which were received into the record:[19]
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
A |
Articles of Incorporation – 6/4/1965 – CHCAA |
|
B |
Articles of Incorporation – 10/22/1975 – CHCAA |
|
C |
Articles of Incorporation – 3/5/2008 – CHCAA |
|
D |
Bylaws – CHCAA |
|
E |
Amended Articles – 10/22/2010 – GHCD |
|
F |
Bylaws – GHCD |
|
G |
24 CRF §92 HOME Investment Partnerships Program |
|
H |
24 CRF §84.21 Standards for Financial Management Systems |
|
I |
Mo Housing Development Commission letter – 3/2/2010 |
|
J |
2010 Income Limits by County |
|
K |
2011 Income Limits by County |
|
L |
2010/2011 Income Limits for Caldwell County with Median Income |
|
M |
2010/2011 Income Limits for Daviess County with Median Income |
|
N |
2010/2011 Income Limits for Livingston County with Median Income |
|
O |
2010/2011 Income Limits for Putnam County with Median Income |
|
P |
2010/2011 Income Limits for Sullivan County with Median Income |
|
Q |
2010/2011 Fair Market Rents for Caldwell County |
|
R |
2010/2011 Fair Market Rents for Daviess County |
|
S |
2010/2011 Fair Market Rents for Livingston County |
|
T |
2010/2011 Fair Market Rents for Putnam County |
|
U |
2010/2011 Fair Market Rents for Sullivan County |
|
V |
Rent Reasonableness Certifications |
|
W |
Green Hills General Brochure |
|
X |
Green Hills Job Coach Program Brochure |
|
Y |
Green Hills Housing Development Program Brochure |
|
Z |
Mo Housing Development Commission Letter – 8/30/11 |
|
AA |
2010/2011 Poverty Guidelines |
|
BB |
Before/After Photos – 400Bridge, Chillicothe |
|
CC |
Before/After Photos – 104 Virginia, Chillicothe |
|
DD |
Census Poverty Data |
|
EE |
Testimony – Mary Garcia |
|
FF |
Testimony – Pete Ramsel |
|
GG |
Testimony – Don Warren |
7. Respondents’ Exhibits.The Respondent’s filed and exchanged the following exhibits:[20]
|
EXHIBIT |
DESCRIPTION |
|
1 |
CHCAA – Tenant Selection Criteria |
|
2 |
HUD Home Program Rent Limits |
|
3 |
GHCAA – Consolidated Financial Statements – 2009 |
|
4 |
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures – 2009 – 2010 |
|
5 |
Lease Agreement |
|
6 |
Caldwell County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement -8/14/04 |
|
7 |
Caldwell County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 7/8/08 |
|
8 |
Caldwell County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 12/15/10 |
|
9 |
Putnam County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 8/17/04 |
|
10 |
Daviess County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 4/4/02 |
|
11 |
Livingston County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 11/26/02 |
|
12 |
Livingston County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 6/28/07 |
|
13 |
Livingston County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 8/3/00 |
|
14 |
Livingston County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 4/17/01 |
|
15 |
Livingston County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 2/13/01 |
|
16 |
Livingston County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 10/24/03 |
|
17 |
Livingston County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 7/21/05 |
|
18 |
Livingston County – Deed of Trust and Security Agreement – 2/13/01 |
Exhibits 6 through 18 do not provide any information relevant to the issue of whether the subject properties in Caldwell, Daviess, Livingston and Putnam do or do not qualify for charitable exemption under Section 137.100(5), RSMo and the applicable case law on charitable exemptions.
8. Testimony at Hearing.The following individuals testified at the evidentiary hearing:Don Warren, Former Executive Director – Green Hills Community Action Agency;[21] Thomas Peter Ramsel, former, Senior Loan Underwriter, Chief Underwriter, Deputy Director and Executive Director of the Missouri Housing Development Commission;[22] and Mary Garcia,Housing Development Director, Green Hills Community Action Agency.[23]
9. Complainants’ Purposes.The program of owning and renting the subject properties is consistent with the stated purposes of GHCCAA, set forth in Stipulation Item (a) iv and v, to wit: Promote better housing options and improved economic conditions for low income families; and To develop and manage housing for low income families.The program of owning and renting the subject properties is consistent with the state purpose of GHCD, set forth in Stipulation Item (e) I, to wit: To develop, own, manage and provide affordable housing to low and moderate income individuals.The operation of Complainants’ low income housing program is in accordance with and furthers their stated purposes.
10. Complainants’ Low Income Housing Program.[24]A family desiring to become a resident of one of Complainants’ properties would have to complete an application.There would have to be third party verification for all income, assets and identification in order to comply with HUD (Housing and Urban Development) and MHDC (Missouri Housing Development Commission) regulations for HOME CHDO (HOME Investment Partnerships Program – Community Housing Development Organization)[25] housing.The staff of GHCAA would check the applicant’s criminal and rental histories to ensure compliance with all HUD and MHDC regulations for HOME CHDO housing.The applicant would then be interviewed to further ensure that the statements in the application and verification meet requirements for housing.
A focus of the application process is the applicant’s income because GHCAA exists to serve low income population in the service area.[26]In addition, the subject homes are funded through HOME CHDO funds and are regulated by contractual agreements for a period of time by MHDC for use only as rentals to low income families.This requires GHCAA to focus on the income of the prospective and existing residents.
Applicants may be denied if they do not meet the MHDC and HUD HOME guidelines for the project because of being over the allowable income.The Regulatory Agreements require the tenants to be at 50% or 60% or under of the Area Median Income (AMI) at move-in, but will allow families to earn up to 80% AMI at recertification.If families earn more than 80% AMI, the HUD adjusted Rent Formula is to be used to measure the rental amount as 30% of the adjusted gross income.This is the highest amount, considered by HUD that a family should have to pay for housing and still be able to afford other necessities.HUD establishes the AMI and income limits.[27]GHCAA is in compliance with the MHDC/HUD requirements.[28]
Rents are set by MHDC during the initial proposal process.Rents may increase only after proving to MHDC that the revenues gained by the projects do not cover their expenses.MHDC may approve the rent increase up to 7% annually up to the Fair Market Rent Amount set by HUD when added to the utility allowance set by the Local Public Housing Authority and approved by HUD.GHCAA is unable to raise rents to whatever it might want or whenever it might want.
Revenues, if any, from the properties after management fees, maintenance and regulatory costs are use to further the purpose of Complainants.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Jurisdiction
The Commission has jurisdiction to hear these appeals and correct any assessments shown to be unlawful, unfair, arbitrary or capricious.[29]Assessing property which is entitled to an exemption from taxation for ad valorem tax purposes is an unlawful and unfair assessment.
Burden of Proof
Complainants have the burden to present substantial and persuasive evidence to rebut the presumption of correct assessment by the Board of Equalization.[30]In order to meet this burden in an appeal seeking exemption from taxation, the Complainants must meet the substantial burden to establish that the property falls within an exempted class under the provisions of Section 137.100.[31] It is well established that taxation is the rule and exemption from taxation is the exception.Exemption is not favored in the law.[32]Establishment of the charitable use of property in accordance with the controlling statute and case law meets the burden of proof.As will be addressed in detail below, Complainant’s evidence has met the required standard of proof to establish the subject properties to be exempt from ad valorem taxation.
Section 137.100(5), RSMo
Complainants seek exemption of its property from taxation pursuant to Section 137.100(5):
The following subjects are exempt from taxation for state, county or localpurposes:
****
(5) All property, real and personal, actually and regularly used exclusively for …
purposes purely charitable and not held for private or corporate profit, except that the
exemption herein granted does not include real property not actually used or occupied
for the purpose of the organization but held or used as investment even though the
income or rentals received therefore is used wholly for — charitable purposes;
The evidence is undisputed that the actual and regular use of the properties which are the subjects of these appeals is to provide residences for low income persons and families.This is also the exclusive use of the properties.There is no other use to which the properties have been put.There is no evidence that any of the properties are being held for either private or corporate profit.Nor was any evidence presented to establish that the properties are being held or use as an investment.The only issue which remains under the statute is whether providing of housing to low income families constitutes a charitable purpose.That will be addressed in the context of the applicable case law on this point.
Franciscan Tertiary Test
In meeting its burden of proof that the subject property is used “exclusively for … purposes purely charitable, and not held for private or corporate profit….”Complainants must
meet the three prong test set forth by the Missouri Supreme Court in Franciscan Tertiary Province v. STC.[33]The court wrote:
The first prerequisite for property to be exempt as charitable under §137.100 is that it be owned and operated on a not-for-profit basis.It must be dedicated un-conditionally to the charitable activity in such a way that there will be no profit, presently or prospectively, to individuals or corporations.Any gain achieved in use of the building must be devoted to attainment of the charitable objectives of the project…. [A]n exemption will not be granted covering property which houses a business operated for the purpose of gaining a profit, even though it is turned over to a parent organization to be used for what are admittedly independently…charitable purposes.
The requirement that the property must be operated as a not-for-profit activity does not mean that it is impermissible for the project at times or even fairly regularly to operated in the black rather than on a deficit basis, provided, of course, that any such excess of income over expenses, is achieved incidentally to accomplishment of the dominantly charitable objective and is not a primary goal of the project, and provided further that all of such gain is devoted to the charitable objectives of the project.
Another prerequisite for charitable exemption is that the dominant use of the property must be for the benefit of an indefinite number of people, for thepurpose, as expressed in Salvation Army, of “relieving their bodies of disease, suffering, or constraint…or by erecting or maintaining pubic buildings…lessening the burdens of government.” 188 S.W.2d at 830…. Thus it is required that there be the element of direct or indirect benefit to society in addition to and as a result of the benefit conferred on the persons directly served by the humanitarian activity.[34]
The three tests to be met under Franciscan are stated as follows for purposes of this Decision and Order:
1.Property must be owned and operated on a not-for-profit basis;
2.Property must be actually and regularly used exclusively for a charitable purpose; and
3.Property must be used for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons and for society in general, directly or indirectly.
Complainant’s Property Qualifies Under the Franciscan Test
Owned and Operated
The initial Franciscan requirement is that to receive exempt status the property must be owned on a not-for-profit basis.The parties have stipulated that GHCD and GHCAA are both incorporated as not-for-profit entities under the laws of the state of Missouri.Therefore, the subject properties are owned on a not-for-profit basis.
The other aspect of the first test is that the property be operated on a not-for-profit basis.The language of the Franciscan court set out above is controlling on this point.The not-for-profit entity may operate in the black rather than on a deficit basis so long as (a) excess of income over expenses is incidental to the charitable purpose, (b) excess of income over expenses in not a primary goal of the use of the property, and (c) any such gain is devoted to the charitable objectives of the entity.
Complainants, in achieving their stated purposes of developing, owning, managing and providing affordable house to low and moderate income individuals have satisfied each of these elements.Any excess of income over expenses would be generated incidental to providing housing to low and moderate income individuals.The generation of excess of income over expenses is not a primary goal or purpose of the Complainants in the use of the subject properties.Any income over expenses is used to further the purposes of Complainants in addressing needs of low-income families.
The properties owned by Complainants and provided as rental units to qualifying individuals and families are unconditionally dedicated in such a manner as to prevent profit, presently or prospectively, to individuals or corporations.If Complainants were to dissolve, the subject properties would have to be disposed of by transferring them to another not-for-profit- 501(c)(3) entity.[35]The argument that Complainants could sell off some or all of the properties to a for-profit entity, and thereby create a “profit” ignores the fact that the proceeds would have to be used to further the purposes of the corporations.
The argument also fails to recognize that any such properties so disposed of would, then, of course, become taxable.The possibility that a not-for-profit corporation might at some time in the future dispose of property does not act to defeat an exemption for property that is being actually and regularly used for a charitable purpose.There is no evidence that Complainants have developed the subject properties and are simply holding them for future disposal to generate profits.The evidence all falls against any such claim.
Finally, any income over expenses cannot be distributed as profits or dividends to shareholders or directors of the corporations, or any other persons.There are no shareholders of the corporations to which any income over expenses could be paid out as dividends.This is one of the critical factors separating not-for-profit entities from for profit entities.First, of course, is that not-for-profit entities, such as Complainants, are not organized for the purpose of making a profit to be paid to investors.For-profit corporations are organized and exist for the primary purpose of making profits so that the corporation can be a profit making venture and dividends can be paid to investors.
The first of the three Franciscan tests is met by Complainants.
Used for Charitable Purpose
The second test which must be applied is that the properties under appeal must be actually and regularly used exclusively for a charitable purpose.While the only use to which the properties have been put under the ownership of Complainants is providing housing for low income individuals, it should be noted in passing the established case law in Missouri on this particular requirement.It is well established that the term “used exclusively” in Section 137.100(5), RSMo has reference to the primary and inherent use as opposed to a mere secondary and incidental use.[36]The primary and inherent use of the subject properties is to provide housing for low income individuals.There is no secondary or incidental use.Accordingly, the question which must now be addressed under this Franciscan test is whether providing housing for low income individuals qualifies as a charitable use or purpose.
Missouri Case Law
There are a number of cases which have been decided over the years on exemptions which are in the arena of housing cases.It is appropriate that a brief review of these particular cases be presented in this Decision.
The fact situation in Salvation Army was that a property known as the St. Louis Evangeline Residence of the Salvation Army provided room and board for women and girls for reduced rates.The Residence was a converted hotel building.Profit was not the motive for operating the housing facility.The purpose in establishing the Residence was the welfare of girls and women, especially those of lower earning capacity and income.
The Court cited to and relied upon the Alexian Brothers Hospital case[38] which had held: “A hospital building is not excluded from the benefits of a statute exempting from taxation property used for ‘purposes purely charitable,’ merely because certain patients therein pay for what they received, which it appears that any profit derived therefrom is applied exclusively to the charitable purposes of the institution.”The Court held: “What is said of the Alexian Brothers Hospital case and the ruling therein is, we think, applicable to the Evangeline Residence of plaintiff in the present case.”The property used for housing was deemed to be exempt from taxation under the statute which was the predecessor to Section 137.100, RSMo.[39]
In this case property of the Housing Authority employed to free areas of the city of St. Louis of congested population from fire hazards, disease, crime, and juvenile delinquency resulting from slum housing by means of low rent housing projects for low income families was found to be exclusive used for purposes purely charitable so as to be exempt from ad valorem taxation.The property was found to be exempt notwithstanding that some rent was charged with each tenant and that some tenants paid rental exceeding that charged for privately owned housing, where all rent revenue was used for basic purpose of providing the housing units and the property could not be operated for revenue.
The property in this case was a residential and retirement facility for elderly persons known as the Ozark Methodist Manor at Marionville in Lawrence County (Manor).A portion of the Manor containing administrative office, two residence halls of apartments, health center, and some nursing facilities had been recognized as exempt by the local assessor and the State Tax Commission (Commission).However, a portion of the Manor had been determined by the Commission to be taxable.
The property that was in dispute consisted of 41 cottages and some vacant land used as garden area by residents living in the cottages.Residents of the cottages paid an initial amount based on the construction costs of the cottage – life care lump sum.When a cottage resident was transferred to the health center or one of the residence halls, then the vacant cottage was available to be occupied by another person or persons upon the payment of the life care lump sum – an amount based on the construction costs of the cottage.
The court concluded that the property, including the cottages and garden area was exempt from ad valorem taxes on the basis that the property was used regularly and exclusively[42] for purposes purely charitable within the meaning of §137.100.The court found that a not-for-profit operation to provide housing for the elderly does not lose its charitable nature because residents are charged for the facilities they receive.“Missouri has long since abandoned the idea that charity can exist only for the indigent.”[43]
Franciscan Tertiary[44] – 1978
This case involved the Chariton Apartments in the City of St. Louis.The facility was an apartment building used to house the elderly.There were 80 efficiency apartments (one room and a bath) and 42 one bed-room apartments (bedroom, sitting room and bath).The facility was under HUD[45] rent regulations and subsidy program.At the time of the suit, only 23 of 142 residents received rent assistance.In finding the housing facilities to be tax exempt, the court stated:
“Franciscan is a not-for-profit corporation whose clearly stated purpose was to operate a rental facility for the aged on a non-profit basis.It did not operate at a profit.It contributed some of its own funds to supplement rentals received in order to meet expenses of operation.No profit to any individual or corporation may result even if the full subsidy contemplated is eventually realized.Chariton, for the reasons we have indicated, was operated for purposes purely charitable within the meaning of §137.100.”[46]
Pentecostal Church of God[47] – 1987
The court in Pentecostal concluded that an apartment building owned and operated by a not-for-profit corporation used as subsidized housing for elderly and handicapped tenants was exempt for ad valorem real estate taxation, even though the corporation was to received title to the building free and clear after 40 years, and all or part of cost of furnishing housing was provided by government subsidies.The holding further found that it was not required to demonstrate that the operation of the facility relieved the government of any of its responsibilities since the government recognized the need to assist in providing for housing needs by the adoption of housing programs.
The holding in this case was that property operated by a not-for-profit corporation as a housing project for elderly and handicapped persons under guidelines promulgated by HUD and subject to supervision by HUD was exempt from taxation as a property operated for charitable purposes.The corporation administered a rent subsidy program that enabled occupants to have housing that would otherwise be unaffordable and unavailable.The corporation’s purposes specifically provided that the corporation would provide housing services specifically designed to meet physical, social and psychological needs of elderly and handicapped persons.Evidence established that the corporation was operated in accordance with its stated purposes.
The Court determined that subsidized apartments for persons at least 62 years of age and handicapped or disabled persons were used for purely charitable purposes and were exempt from real estate taxes within the meaning of §137.100.This was so even though (1) the owner made no donation to construction costs, (2) social services were provided to residents from other sources, (3) evidence failed to show lack of suitable housing in area for aged or handicapped low-income persons, and (4) evidence failed to show that rents were below fair market rents.The owner of the property was a not-for-profit corporation and could convey property only to nonprofit organizations.The Court determined that the status of Senior Citizens Bootheel Service, Inc. and the use of its apartments met the criteria established by Franciscan and Pentecostal.
Summary – Missouri Case Law
The foregoing cases clearly establish that the providing of housing to elderly, handicapped, or other low-income persons is a charitable use of real property, when done under the auspices of a not-for-profit owner.Accordingly, the actual use made by Complainants of the subject properties, i.e. providing housing to low-income persons and families constitutes a charitable use and satisfies the second test of Franciscan.
Benefit Indefinite of Persons & Society
The final test to be met for the subject properties to qualify as tax exempt is that they must be used for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons and for society in general, directly or indirectly.
Indefinite Number of Persons
Although there are a limited number of properties, the number of low and moderate income individuals who may, over the years, received the benefit of having affordable and improved housing options is not limited.The use of the subject properties benefits the residents by assisting them to establish themselves for life in that they are able to reside in affordable housing.As often as a property becomes vacant another individual or family can receive the housing benefit provided by Complainant’s properties.The potential universe of persons who can and will be served by the use of the subject properties is not a closed class.It is open as
often as an additional residence becomes available for occupancy by a new low or moderate income tenant.
Benefit to Society
The cases previously reviewed answer the other part of the third Franciscan test.Providing of housing to persons in need, whether due to age, handicap or income, has been recognized as providing a benefit to society in general.The Complainant’s properties, just as with the housing facilities in Salvation Army, Bader, Methodist, Franciscan, Pentecostal, Rolla, and Senior Citizens, benefit society in general.
Accordingly, the use of the properties under appeal satisfies the final Franciscan test.
Community Park Village Not Controlling
Respondents’ point of attack against the granting of exemption rest on their arguments developed from the Community Park Village case.[50]In Community Park the Western District Court of Appeals concluded that exemption was not warranted on the ground that the sole and exclusive benefit to tenants was reduced rent and there were no programs of social, moral or religious activities available to the residents of the low and moderate-income housing development.The case was decided in 1983.It was therefore followed by the Pentecostal, Rolla and Senior Citizen decisions.It is imperative that these cases be further examined in light of Respondent’s Community Park argument.
Pentecostal
The Missouri Supreme Court in Pentecostal makes no reference to Community Park and provides no discussion of any requirements to provide programs of social, moral or religious activities to residents of the housing development.While one might wish to infer some type of religious connection or benefit being tied to the providing of housing given the name of the case, such an inference would be in error.The court has nothing to say in this regard.The case involved subsidized housing under a HUD agreement, which made housing available to elderly and handicapped persons who met certain financial guidelines and thereby the beneficiaries of reduced rent.Although some tenants were charged “market rent,” based upon their ability to pay.
The analysis by the court was entirely under the Franciscan tests, without any discussion along the lines advance by Respondents relative to an “insufficient nexus” between charitable services and the tenants of the properties.Given that no such requirement gleaned from Community Park was applied by the court in Pentecostal, there seems no basis to now apply such in this instance.Furthermore, the Pentecostal court observed; “Franciscan was designed to give general approval to housing projects for the elderly and handicapped.It should not be read grudgingly.”[51]A non-grudgingly application of Franciscan and common sense would also include low-income in the category of individuals that should benefit from housing projects.
Rolla Apartments
Turning to the Rolla Apartments case, it is likewise observed, no discussion of the applicability of Community Park is made.The court did observe that residents of the Rolla Apartments did have activities and transportation organized for them under the direction of an activity director.However, no great importance appears to have been placed on this particular point.
There is an important distinction between the subject properties and both the Community Park and Rolla Apartments and that is Community and Rolla both involved apartment complexes which, of course, would more readily lend the facilities to the providing of “services” to benefit the residents.The subject properties being stand alone residences do not function like an apartment complex where an activities director could be employed to coordinate activities for tenants.However, Complainant’s other activities of providing services in the individual communities to individuals and families are certainly additional benefits that are available to tenants of the properties under appeal.The utilization of those services by individual tenants is not the deciding factor.
Residents of Rolla could have opted out of any activities, since the record does not reveal that there was any requirement that residents had to take part in certain activities in order to be allowed to live in the facility.“Respondents do not dispute that, on the whole, Green Hills provides many valuable and charitable services to Missouri residents at large, consistent with its mission of serving low-income individuals and families.”[52]There exist significant programs offered by Complainants which make available services to the tenants of the subject properties.
Tenants who are unable to pay the standard security deposit, but are otherwise qualified to occupy the rental property, can have the deposit paid for by a GHCAA program.[53]Tenants who may have a problem paying the monthly rent can also benefit from assistance provided by GHCAA.[54]Other services provided by GHCAA and available to residents of the subject properties include emergency assistance, women’s health services, career development, energy services, family counseling and personal counseling.[55]Current residents have availed themselves of the following services: personal and family counseling, GED classes, job skills training, tuition assistance for vocational training, assistance with payment of utility bills, assistance paying for security deposits, rents, food and toiletries and Women’s Health Clinic.[56]These are services available to the residents of each of the subject properties which are far “beyond those normally furnished to renters in an apartment complex.”[57]They certainly go beyond the arrangement of activities and transportation in Rolla Apartments.
Respondents would add as a requirement to Franciscan that the not-for-profit owner of housing rented to low and moderate income individuals must require the tenants as a condition of occupancy to participate in certain programs of social, moral, or religious activities.Such a position is not supported by the case law relative to low income housing.That is not the holding of Community Park.
Senior Citizen Bootheel
The holding of the court in this case is notable as to Respondent’s Community Park argument.First it must be noted that no discussion of the rational of Community Park was given.In point of fact there is no citation to Community Park by the Senior Citizen court.As set out above there were a number of interesting factors involved in the Senior Citizen apartments.One of those factors was that social services were provided to residents from sources other than the owner.
The collector in Senior Citizen, like Respondents in the present appeals, argued that in Franciscan the cost of social and recreational services was paid by the owner of the project, while similar services were not supplied by the owner, but rather were provided by private and foundation donations.The court concluded this was a distinction without a difference.The court went on to reiterate the holding in Pentecostal that the design of Franciscan was to give approval to the exemption of housing projects for elderly and handicapped, where owned and operated on a non-for-profit basis.
Conclusion
From the forgoing analysis and review of the three specific cases that were decided after Community Park, the Hearing Officer is persuaded that Respondent’s argument based on the holding in Community Park is not well taken.The subject properties meet the three tests set forth by the Franciscan holding and accordingly are exempt from ad valorem taxation under §137.100, RSMo.
ORDER
The assessments of the subject properties made by the respective individual Assessors for Caldwell, Daviess, Livingston, Putnam and Sullivan Counties and sustained by the respective Boards of Equalization for Caldwell, Daviess, Livingston, Putnam and Sullivan Counties for the subject tax day are SET ASIDE.
The individual county clerks for Caldwell, Daviess, Livingston, Putnam and Sullivan Counties are ordered to enter the subject property on the list of exempt property into the supplemental tax book for their respective counties for the tax year 2010.
A party may file with the Commission an application for review of this decision within thirty days of the mailing date set forth in the Certificate of Service.The application shall contain specific facts or law as grounds upon which it is claimed the decision is erroneous.Said application must be in writing addressed to the State Tax Commission of Missouri, P.O. Box 146, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0146, and a copy of said application must be sent to each person at the address listed below in the certificate of service.
Failure to state specific facts or law upon which the appeal is based will result in summary denial. [58]
The Collectors of Caldwell, Daviess, Livingston, Putnam and Sullivan Counties, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending the possible filing of an Application for Review, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of Section 139.031.8, RSMo.
Any Finding of Fact which is a Conclusion of Law or Decision shall be so deemed.Any Decision which is a Finding of Fact or Conclusion of Law shall be so deemed.
SO ORDERED August 9, 2012.
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI
W. B. Tichenor
Senior Hearing Officer
[4] 652 S.W.2d 179 (Mo. Ct. App. WD 1983), see also Metropolitan Pittsburgh Nonprofit Housing v. Board of Property Assessment, 368 A.2d 837, St. Luke’s Village 11 N.J.Tx 76, Methodist River v. Waco, 409 S.W.2d 485.
[6](See, Missouri Church of Scientology v. STC, 560 S.W.2d 837, 844 (Mo. banc 1977); CSCEA v. Nelson, 898 S.W.2d 547, 548 (Mo. banc 1995), citing Scientology).
[8] Pentecostal Church of God v. Wm. E. Hughlett, Collector of Jasper County, Missouri, et al., 737 S.W.2d 728 (Mo. banc. 1987)
[9] This information was not supplied by Complainant.The Commission found this information through a search of the records of the Secretary of State.
[13]In Pentecostal Church of God v. Wm. E. Hughlett, Collector of Jasper County, Missouri, et al., 737 S.W.2d 728 (Mo. banc 1987)and Rolla Apartments v. State Tax Commission, 797 SW2d 781 (Mo. App. SD 1990) the courts found that housing for the elderly and handicapped was a sufficient findingfor charitable purposes in that without such housing for those tenants would become a burden to society and alternative housing would need to be provided.
[15] Addresses and map parcel numbers for each property are taken from the individual Complaints for Review of Assessment.
[16] Residential property is assessed at 19% of its appraised value (true value in money, fair market value), Section 137.115.5(1), RSMo.All the properties under appeal are classified as residential property.Neither valuation or classification are at issue.
[22] Revised Exhibit FF; TR 11:7 – 18 – Witness was tendered for cross-examination, but Counsel for Respondent had no questions for the witness.
[25] The HOME program was designed to create affordable housing for low income households. (Revised Exhibit FF – Q & A 10)CHDO is a special designation granted to special non-profits that provide housing to low income individuals and families.The HOME regulations spell out the specific requirements for the non-profit to qualify as a CHDO. (Revised Exhibit FF – Q & A 19; Revised Exhibit EE – Q & A 38 – 42)GHCAA is qualified as a CHDO. (Revised Exhibit EE – Q & A 39)
[26] The service area includes the counties of Caldwell, Daviess, Grundy, Harrison, Linn, Livingston, Mercer, Putnam and Sullivan Counties.(Exhibit EE – Q & A 42 & 43)
[32](See, Missouri Church of Scientology v. STC, 560 S.W.2d 837, 844 (Mo. banc 1977); CSCEA v. Nelson, 898 S.W.2d 547, 548 (Mo. banc 1995), citing Scientology).
[35] Exhibit 3 – Articles of Incorporation 2008 – Article VII – Upon the dissolution of the Corporation, the Board of Directors shall, after paying or making provisions for the payment of all of the liabilities of the corporation, dispose of all the assets of the Corporation exclusively for the purposes of the Corporation in such charitable, education, religious, or scientific purposes as shall at the time qualify as an exempt organization or organizations under Section 501( c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or the corresponding provision of any future United States Internal Revenue Law), as the Board of Directors shall determine.
[36] See: Missouri United Methodist Retirement Homes v. STC, 522 S. W. 2d 745, 751 (Mo, Div 2, 1975); Community Memorial Hospital v. City of Moberly, 422 S.W.2d, 290, 295 (Mo. 1968); Salvation Army v. Hoehn et al, 188 S.W.2d 826, 830 (Mo 1945); Young Women’s Christian Ass’n et al. v. Baumann, 130 S.W.2d 499, 502 (banc 1939); State ex rel. Koeln v. St. Louis Y.M.C.A, 168 S.W. 589, 590 (1914);
[40] Bader Realty & Investment Co. v. St. Louis Housing Authority et al, 217 S.W. 2d 489 (Mo. banc 1949)
[41] United Methodist Retirement Homes v. State Tax Commission of Missouri, 522 S.W. 2d 745 (Mo. Div. 2, 1975)
[47] Pentecostal Church of God v. Wm. E. Hughlett, Collector of Jasper County, Missouri, et al., 737 S.W.2d 728 (Mo. banc. 1987)
[48] Rolla Apartments/Overall Construction Industries, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 797 S.W.2d 781 (Mo. App. SD 1990)