Opinion
No. FSTCV 94 014003819
March 29, 2005
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
This is a tax appeal by the plaintiff, NSA Properties, Inc., pursuant to General Statutes § 12-119, involving five parcels totaling approximately thirteen acres and known as 503 Wire Mill Road in Stamford. The plaintiff claims that its property was wrongfully and illegally assessed by the defendant, the city of Stamford for the years 1993 to December 2001, when the plaintiff sold its property. The appeal was referred to D.E. Ross, Esquire, an attorney trial referee, in accordance with General Statutes § 52-434(a)(4) and Practice Book § 19-2A.
The exact title of the plaintiff is the Natural Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'i of the United States. The named plaintiff is the real estate holding arm of the Natural Spiritual Assembly.
General Statutes § 12-119 pertains, among other things, to property that is "not taxable." The Superior Court has the authority to grant such relief "as to justice and equity appertains."
In a report dated October 19, 2004, the attorney trial referee made several factual findings which may be summarized as follows: (1) the plaintiff is a religious organization practicing the Baha'i faith; (2) the parcel with the main house had already been found by the defendant to be tax exempt and the controversy centered around the use of the other parcels; (3) the plaintiff received no rents, income or profits from any of the parcels; (4) the four unimproved parcels were used by church members as "part of their educational and spiritual purposes;" and (5) the caretaker's cottage had a library and was used for "gatherings, study and education."
The attorney trial referee concluded that all five of the parcels comprising the subject property were exempt from taxation pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-81(7) and 12-81(13) because they were all being used as incidental to the plaintiff's charitable and/or religious purposes. Accordingly, the referee recommended that judgment enter in favor of the plaintiff.
The defendant city of Stamford objected to the report and recommendation of the attorney trial referee as authorized by Practice Book § 19-14 because: (1) the referee did not rule separately on the five parcels but rather lumped them together both in terms of actual use and differing time periods; (2) the pleadings claimed exemption for charitable purposes but the referee determined that the plaintiff was also entitled to tax exemption under General Statutes § 12-81(13) pertaining to "houses of religious worship," including the land on which they stand; (3) there was no proof that the caretaker's cottage was necessarily related to the plaintiff's charitable and/or religious purposes; (4) there was inadequate evidence of the actual use by the plaintiff of the four unimproved parcels of land; (5) the parcels were not used exclusively for charitable and/or religious purposes; and (6) the admission of a prior application for tax exemption was erroneous as the document did not constitute a business record.
Practice Book § 19-14 provides: "A party may file objections to the acceptance of a report on the ground that conclusions of fact stated in it were not properly reached on the basis of the subordinate facts found, or that the . . . attorney trial referee erred in rulings on evidence or other rulings or that there are other reasons why the report should not be accepted."
Practice Book § 19-17(a) involves the function of this court in reviewing reports of attorney trial referees and provides: "The court shall render such judgment as the law requires upon the facts in the report. If the court finds that the attorney trial referee has materially erred in its rulings or that there are other sufficient reasons why the report should not be accepted, the court shall reject the report and refer the matter to the same or another . . . attorney trial referee . . . for a new trial or revoke the reference and leave the case to be disposed of in court."
"[T]he trial court must review the referee's entire report to determine whether the recommendations contained in it are supported by findings of fact in the report." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Killion v. Davis, 257 Conn. 98, 102, 776 A.2d 456 (2001). Second, the court must ensure that the report does not contain "legal conclusions for which there are no subordinate facts." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Third, the report must be reviewed to determine if it is "legally and logically correct . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 103.
Therefore, the issue is whether there is evidence in the record to support the referee's findings of fact that the subject premises were used for charitable and/or religious purposes. The caretaker's cottage and the four unimproved lots must be treated separately because there are different precedents applicable to the cottage and to the vacant land.
Although the application to the defendant municipality for tax exemption was cast in terms of a charitable organization, a witness for the plaintiff testified that the caretaker's house "functions like a house of worship . . . because it's used for Bahai religious meetings and those are held at buildings and the buildings are buildings that are owned by religious organizations and used for religious purposes.
As to the caretakers' carriage house or garage, the transcript reveals that meetings, including study groups, prayers and religious feasts and services, took place not only in the main house, which was admittedly exempt from taxation, but also in the carriage house. The caretaker testified that it was advantageous to hold meetings in the so-called cottage because the library was upstairs where there were reference books and materials which were used "if we had an issue that we had to go to the writings to work out." In addition, the caretakers were responsible for security on the thirteen acres, as well as maintenance of the premises.
The reviewing court is also obliged to determine whether the report of the attorney trial referee is legally correct. Promoting Enduring Peace, Inc. v. Milford, 83 Conn.App. 124, 847 A.2d 1110, cert. denied 270 Conn. 914, 853 A.2d 528 (2004), involved General Statutes § 12-81(7) and whether a private residence used by the executive director of the charitable organization constitutes "exclusive use" for charitable purposes. The court stated that the resolution of this issue was "governed by the specific facts in the individual case." Id., 129. "Even significant residential use of charitable property does not invariably preclude a tax exemption." Id., 131. The issue was whether the use of the cottage by a caretaker "was essential to the plaintiff's achievement of its mission." Id. The court held that the plaintiff had not sustained its burden of demonstrating that there was a "compelling linkage between its charitable purposes and the use of its property as the residence of its executive director." Id., 133.
In this present case, the cottage was used as a residence for the caretakers but the referee found as a fact that the caretaker's cottage was used for charitable and religious purposes as well. This finding cannot be reversed because it is well established that "[W]hether the property for which an exemption is claimed is used exclusively for one of the required purposes must be determined from the facts.
The conclusion in each case is necessarily governed by the specific facts in the individual case." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Red Top, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review, 181 Conn. 343, 354, 435 A.2d 364 (1980).
This inquiry regarding the caretaker's cottage is also subject to the principle that: "It is axiomatic that [a] reviewing authority may not substitute its findings for those of the trier of the facts. This principle applies no matter whether the reviewing authority is the Supreme Court . . . the Appellate Court . . . or the Superior Court reviewing the findings of . . . attorney trial referees. See Practice Book § [19-17] . . . [Our Supreme Court] has articulated that attorney trial referees and fact finders share the same function . . . whose determination of the facts is reviewable in accordance with well-established procedures prior to the rendition of judgment by the court . . . The factual findings of a [referee] on any issue are reversible only if they are clearly erroneous . . . [A reviewing court] cannot retry the facts or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses . . . A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed" (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Meadows v. Higgins, 249 Conn. 155, 162, 733 A.2d 172 (1999). The factual finding by the attorney trial referee that the caretaker's cottage was used for tax exempt purposes has sufficient support in the record to warrant acceptance of his recommendations in this regard.
The second aspect of this tax appeal concerns the four vacant lots. Grace N' Vessels of Christ Ministries, Inc. v. Danbury, 53 Conn.App. 866, 733 A.2d 283 (1999), involved a vacant, unimproved lot. The court quoted General Statutes § 12-88, which provides in relevant part: "Real property belonging to . . . any organization mentioned in subdivision (7), (10), (11), (13), (14), (15), (16) or (18) of Section 12-81, which real property is so held for one or more of the purposes stated in the applicable subdivision, and from which real property no rents, profits or income are derived, shall be exempt from taxation though not in actual use therefor by reason of the absence of suitable buildings and improvements thereon, if the construction of such buildings or improvements is in progress . . . If a portion only of any lot or building belonging to, or held in trust for, any such organization is used exclusively for carrying out one or more of such purposes, such lot or building shall be so exempt only to the extent of the portion so used and the remaining portion shall be subject to taxation."
In determining that the unimproved lot was not tax exempt, the court noted that: "At trial, evidence was presented that lot C15015 was an unimproved, wooded lot that contained no structures or buildings other than a volleyball court. Despite Grace N' Vessels' assertion that lot C15015 was used for religious purposes in that `prayer walks' were occasionally conducted on the property, there was sufficient testimony presented to demonstrate that the lot had no buildings or improvements, either completed or in progress, suitable for use for charitable purposes." Grace N' Vessels of Christ Ministries, Inc. v. Danbury, supra, 53 Conn.App. 872. Therefore, the court ruled that the unimproved lot was not exempt from taxation because it contained "neither any building or other improvement used for charitable purposes, nor such improvements in the process of being constructed." Id.
In this case, there was no evidence that any construction was contemplated for the four unimproved lots. The national business manager testified that there were heavily wooded trails or paths on the unimproved property that were used for "meditation and prayer." The issue of tax exemption for these four unimproved lots is controlled by Grace N' Vessels of Christ Ministries, Inc. v. Danbury, supra, 53 Conn.App. 866, and, therefore, the determination that these lots were exempt from taxation must be rejected as contrary to law.
Thus, judgment may enter for the plaintiff with respect to tax exemption for the lot with the caretaker's cottage and in favor of the defendant as to the four unimproved lots, without interest or costs to either party.
So Ordered.
William B. Lewis, Judge(T.R.)