Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealburden of proofappellant
appellant

Related Cases

Markham v. Comstock, 38 A.D.3d 1262, 833 N.Y.S.2d 781, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 02245
View Case »
Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Kosydar, 45 Ohio St.2d 1, 340 N.E.2d 840, 74 O.O.2d 1
View Case »
Department of Revenue of State of Wash. v. Association of Washington Stevedoring Companies, 435 U.S. 734, 98 S.Ct. 1388, 55 L.Ed.2d 682, 1978 A.M.C. 1070
View Case »
Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Department of Revenue, 299 Or. 220, 700 P.2d 1035
View Case »
Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, 119 S.Ct. 1518, 143 L.Ed.2d 689, 67 USLW 4291, 61 Soc.Sec.Rep.Serv. 75, 99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3574, 1999 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4559, 1999 CJ C.A.R. 2812, 12 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 227
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Full Gospel Apostolic Church v. Limbach, 46 Ohio St.3d 195, 546 N.E.2d 403

Facts

The appellant owns fifty-four acres of land with three buildings: a church sanctuary, a combination parsonage/school/storeroom, and a youth center. The property was acquired by gift in 1975, with the tabernacle and two tax-exempt acres in the middle, while the parsonage, school, and youth center occupy the left rear corner. The remaining land is mostly lawn and trees, with some used for recreation. The appellant sought tax exemption for the property for the tax year 1983 and remission for 1982, but the Tax Commissioner only exempted the tabernacle and two acres, denying the remaining fifty-two acres.

Appellant owns fifty-four acres of land improved with three buildings—a church sanctuary or “tabernacle”; a combination parsonage, school, and storeroom; and a youth center. Appellant acquired the property by gift in 1975. The parcel is roughly rectangular. The tabernacle and its two tax-exempt acres sit approximately in the middle of the parcel. The parsonage, school, and youth center and their exempt five acres are located in the left rear corner of the parcel. The remainder of the parcel is mostly a large lawn with a grove of trees along the rear border of the property. Some of this remaining acreage is used for school and church recreation.

Issue

Did the Church establish that the 47 acres were used in a principal, primary, and essential way to facilitate public worship, and should the acreage be exempt as a sound barrier?

Did the Church establish that the 47 acres were used in a principal, primary, and essential way to facilitate public worship, and should the acreage be exempt as a sound barrier?

Rule

In determining a property's primary use, the court looks to whether the property is used in a principal, primary, and essential way to facilitate public worship, rather than merely measuring the amount of time it is used for taxable versus nontaxable purposes.

In Faith Fellowship Ministries, Inc. v. Limbach (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 432, 513 N.E.2d 1340 , we held that in determining a property's primary use we would not simply measure the “amount of time property is used in a taxable vis-a-vis a nontaxable use,” but would look to see whether the property is “used in a principal, primary, and essential way to facilitate the public worship.”

Analysis

The court found that the Church's use of the 47 acres for outdoor revivals and services was sporadic and lacked quantitative data to support its claim. Additionally, parts of the acreage were used for recreation and farming for profit, which undermined the argument for tax exemption based on primary use for worship.

Clearly, the use of the forty-seven acres for outdoor revivals and congregational services is sporadic. Neither the BTA nor we were provided quantitative data on its use. Furthermore, part of the forty-seven acres was normally used for recreation and part of it was farmed for profit during the tax years for which exemption was sought.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the Board of Tax Appeals' decision, concluding that the Church did not meet the burden of proof for tax exemption.

The decision of the BTA is reasonable and lawful, and it is hereby affirmed.

Who won?

The Board of Tax Appeals prevailed because the Church failed to demonstrate that the 47 acres were primarily used for public worship or as a sound barrier.

The BTA found insufficient reasons to exempt more than seven acres of appellant's fifty-four acre tract. Necessarily, we are limited to deciding whether the BTA's decision is “reasonable and lawful.”

You must be