Summary
In Summit United Methodist Church v. Kinney (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 72, 2 OBR 628, 442 N.E.2d 1298, the court considered an application for exemption filed by Summit United Methodist Church for a house it owned. Part of the house was rented to Citizens Crime Reporting Project, a nonprofit organization.
Summary of this case from First Baptist Church Milford v. WilkinsOpinion
No. 82-87
Decided December 22, 1982
Taxation — Tax exemption for real property owned by church — R.C. 5709.12 and 5709.121 — Property must belong to "charitable institution" — Factual determination.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
Appellant, Summit United Methodist Church, is a non-profit Ohio corporation and an organized church under the West Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church. Appellant seeks exemption for a three-story house with partial basement and two-car garage which it owns in Columbus, Ohio. Two rooms and a bath located at the rear of the first floor of the building are rented to Citizens Crime Reporting Project (CCRP). CCRP is a non-profit organization funded through the Law Enforcement Assistance Agency. It is an organization of local citizens who patrol the residential areas around Ohio State University to assist the Columbus Police in the prevention and detection of crime. CCRP pays appellant rent of $150 per month which is used by appellant for general purposes. The remainder of the building is occupied by Choices (formerly known as Phoenix House), a non-profit Ohio corporation which provides shelter to victims of domestic violence. Choices does not pay a fixed rental, but is responsible for the utilities, taxes and interior maintenance of the property.
The Commissioner of Tax Equalization denied the exemption and the Board of Tax Appeals affirmed.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Mr. Windell F. Fisher, for appellant.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. Mark A. Engel, for appellee.
Appellant claims entitlement to tax exemption under R.C. 5709.12 and 5709.121. R.C. 5709.12 exempts from taxation real property "used exclusively for charitable purposes." That phrase is defined in R.C. 5709.121, which provides, in part:
"Real property and tangible personal property belonging to a charitable * * * institution * * * shall be considered as used exclusively for charitable or public purposes by such institution * * * if it is either:
"(A) Used by such institution * * * or by one or more other such institutions, the state, or political subdivisions under a lease, sublease, or other contractual arrangement:
"* * *
"(2) For other charitable, educational, or public purposes; * * *"
In order for property to qualify for exemption under R.C. 5709.121, it must belong to a charitable institution. Cincinnati Nature Center v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 122, 125 [2 O.O.3d 275]; Episcopal Parish v. Kinney (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 199, 201 [12 O.O.3d 197]; Operation Evangelize v. Kinney (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 346 [23 O.O.3d 315].
By this appeal, appellant contests the Board of Tax Appeals' factual determination that it was not a charitable institution within the purview of R.C. 5709.121.
"In reviewing decisions of the board, this court has repeatedly stated that it is not a trier of fact de novo, but that it is confined to its statutorily delineated duties (R.C. 5717.04) of determining whether the board's decision is `reasonable and lawful.' Citizens Financial Corp. v. Porterfield (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 53 [54 O.O.2d 191]; Buckeye Power v. Kosydar (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 137 [64 O.O.2d 82]; Cardinal Federal S. L. Assn. v. Bd. of Revision (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 13 [73 O.O.2d 83]; Conalco v. Bd. of Revision (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 330 [8 O.O.3d 323]; Alcoa v. Kosydar (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 477 [8 O.O.3d 459]." Episcopal Parish v. Kinney, supra, at 201.
With this standard of review in mind, we find sufficient evidence in the record to support the board's finding that appellant was primarily a religious institution, and therefore not entitled to tax exemption under R.C. 5709.12 and 5709.121.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, being neither unreasonable nor unlawful, is hereby affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, PARRINO, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and KRUPANSKY, JJ., concur.
PARRINO, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for SWEENEY, J.