G.D.L. Plaza v. Council Rock School D

37 Citing cases

  1. City of Washington v. Bd. of Assess

    666 A.2d 352 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1995)   Cited 12 times

    Therefore, "[t]he constitution does not, of itself, exempt any property; it merely permits the legislature to do so within certain limits." G.D.L. Plaza. v. Council Rock School District. 515 Pa. 54, 58, 526 A.2d 1173, 1175 (1987), quoting Donohugh's Appeal, 86 Pa. 306, 509 (1873). The exemption from taxation of purely public charities has been recognized by the Pennsylvania Constitution since the adoption of the constitution of 1874.

  2. WRC North Fork Heights, Inc. v. Board of Assessment Appeals

    917 A.2d 893 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2007)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In 1987 the Supreme Court decided G.D.L. Plaza Corp. v. Council Rock School District, 515 Pa. 54, 526 A.2d 1173 (1987). The facility at issue, financed through the Section 202 Program, provided residential housing to persons at least sixty-two years of age, with limited incomes and assets.

  3. Mars School Dist. v. Women's Ass'n

    693 A.2d 1002 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    granted 545 Pa. 672, 681 A.2d 1344 (1996). In G.D.L. Plaza v. Council Rock School District, 515 Pa. 54, 526 A.2d 1173 (1987), the Supreme Court noted that in deciding whether an institution is one of purely public charity "`prior cases have limited value as precedent,' . . . because of the continually changing nature of the concept of charity and the many variable circumstances of time, place, and purpose." 515 Pa. at 59-60, 526 A.2d at 1175 (citation omitted).

  4. School Dist. v. Hamot Medical Center

    144 Pa. Commw. 668 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1992)   Cited 21 times

    Because of our disposition of these procedural issues, we must now consider the substantive question of whether the trial court applied the appropriate law in determining that Hamot was not entitled to retain its tax-exempt status. The central question presented is which of two cases, Hospital Utilization Project, or West Allegheny Hospital v. Board of Property Assessment, 500 Pa. 236, 455 A.2d 1170 (1982), controls the outcome on the particular facts before us. And, in tax exemption cases, the facts are of critical importance because it has been held by our Supreme Court that prior decisions based on then-current information and facts have limited value as precedent. G.D.L. Plaza Corp. v. Council Rock School District, 515 Pa. 54, 526 A.2d 1173 (1987). The G.D.L. Court observed that the value of precedent is limited because of the continually changing nature of the concept of charity and the many variable circumstances of time, place and purpose.

  5. Lutheran Soc. Ser. Appeal

    114 Pa. Commw. 628 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1988)   Cited 5 times

    Woods Schools Tax Exemption Case, 406 Pa. 579, 584, 178 A.2d 600, 602 (1962). See G.D.L. Plaza Corporation v. Council Rock School District, 515 Pa. 54, 59 n. 2, 526 A.2d 1173, 1175 n. 2 (1987). The question of whether an institution is one of "purely public charity" is a mixed question of fact and law on which the trial court's decision is binding if there is no abuse of discretion nor lack of supporting evidence; the same is true for the questions of whether an institution is founded, endowed and maintained by public or private charity.

  6. Advanced L., Inc. v. Mont. Co. Bd. of A.A

    113 Pa. Commw. 514 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1988)   Cited 2 times

    Woods Schools Tax Exemption Case, 406 Pa. 579, 584, 178 A.2d 600, 602 (1962). Although the individual factual matrix of cases in this area of the law is generally quite variable, rendering past precedent of limited value, the facts of the instant case are remarkably similar to those recently analyzed by our Supreme Court in G.D.L. Plaza Corp. v. Council Rock School District, 515 Pa. 54, 526 A.2d 1173 (1987). G.D.L. Plaza also involved a HUD-financed and subsidized housing project for eligible elderly and handicapped persons.

  7. Community Options v. Board of Property Assess

    571 Pa. 672 (Pa. 2002)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a nonprofit corporation that acquires and renovates houses in residential neighborhoods with private funds and houses individuals diagnosed with mental retardation and severe physical disabilities with 24–hour supervision with government funds, relieved the government of a burden because the government was required to provide services for the individuals diagnosed with mental retardation under the MH/MR Act and the corporation also provided services that the government was not capable of providing

    An entity seeking a statutory exemption for taxation must first establish that it is a "purely public charity" under Article VIII, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution before the question of whether that entity meets the qualifications of a statutory exemption can be reached. G.D.L. Plaza Corp. v. Council Rock Sch. Dist., 526 A.2d 1173, 1175 (Pa. 1987); Hospital Utilization Project, 487 A.2d at 1312. In Hospital Utilization Project, this Court set forth a five-part test for determining whether an entity qualifies as a "purely public charity" under the Pennsylvania Constitution:

  8. State Department of Assessments v. N. Baltimore C

    129 Md. App. 588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2000)   Cited 8 times
    Holding that facility used for providing indigent mental health services and that received most of its funding through government funds and minimal donations qualified for tax exemption

    Pennsylvania's courts have interpreted this to mean that some portion of operating expense must be funded by charitable gifts. See G.D.L. Plaza Corp. v. Council Rock School Dist., 526 A.2d 1173 (Pa. 1987); Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 487 A.2d 1306 (Pa. 1985). But see Four Freedoms House of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia, 279 A.2d 155 (Pa. 1971).

  9. Pottstown School v. Hill School

    786 A.2d 312 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2001)   Cited 9 times
    Stating that interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution is the province of the courts

    [T]he question of whether an entity seeking or defending a tax exemption is a "purely public charity", within the meaning of Article 8, Section 2(a)(v) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, is a preliminary question which must be addressed before the question of whether that entity meets the qualifications of a statutory exemption can be reached. [G.D.L. Plaza Corporation v. Council Rock School District, 515 Pa. 54, 526 A.2d 1173 (1987)]; [Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 1, 487 A.2d 1306 (1985)]; School District of the City of Erie v. Hamot Medical Center, [ 602 A.2d 407 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992)]. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated:

  10. Community Options v. Board of Property

    764 A.2d 645 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 2000)   Cited 6 times

    In addition, the question of whether an institution is one of "purely public charity", for purposes of tax exemption under Article 8, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, is a mixed question of law and fact on which the trial court's decision is binding absent an abuse of discretion or a lack of supporting evidence. Mars Area School District v. United Presbyterian Women's Association of North America, 554 Pa. 324, 721 A.2d 360 (1998); G.D.L. Plaza Corporation v. Council Rock School District, 515 Pa. 54, 526 A.2d 1173 (1987). Community Options first claims that the trial court erred in determining that its properties were not entitled to tax-exempt status for the years 1996 and 1997.