Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Attleboro , 476 Mass. 690 ( 2017 )

NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound
volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
SJC-12021
SHRINE OF OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE INC. vs. BOARD OF ASSESSORS
OF ATTLEBORO.
Suffolk. December 5, 2016. - March 22, 2017.
Present: Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ.
Taxation, Real estate tax: abatement, Real estate tax:
exemption, Real estate tax: classification of property.
Real Property, Tax.
Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board.
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for
direct appellate review.
Diane C. Tillotson (Ryan P. McManus also present) for the
taxpayer.
Michael R. Siddall (James M. Hannifan also present) for
board of assessors of Attleboro.
Heidi A. Nadel, for Massachusetts Council of Churches &
others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.
Felicia H. Ellsworth, Eric L. Hawkins, & William R.
O'Reilly, Jr., for Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston & others,
amici curiae, submitted a brief.
GANTS, C.J. This is an appeal from a decision of the
Appellate Tax Board (board) concerning property in Attleboro
2
owned by the taxpayer, Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc.
(Shrine). The Shrine sought a tax abatement from the board,
claiming that certain portions of its property were exempt from
taxation under G. L. c. 59, § 5, Eleventh (Clause Eleventh), the
exemption for "houses of religious worship." The crux of the
appeal is the scope of this exemption. For the reasons set
forth below, we conclude that property is exempt from taxation
under Clause Eleventh where the dominant purpose of the
questioned portion of property is religious worship or
instruction, or purposes connected with it. Applying this
principle, we conclude that the board erred when it found that
the Shrine's "welcome center" and maintenance building were not
exempt under Clause Eleventh. We affirm its denial of an
abatement for the former convent that the Shrine leased to a
nonprofit organization for use as a safe house for battered
women, and for the wildlife sanctuary that was exclusively
managed by the Massachusetts Audubon Society in accordance with
a conservation easement. The safe house and wildlife sanctuary
might have been exempt from real estate taxation under G. L.
c. 59, § 5, Third (Clause Third), as the property of a
benevolent or charitable organization devoted to charitable use,
had the Shrine satisfied the filing requirements for such an
exemption, but they were not exempt under Clause Eleventh.1
1
We acknowledge the amicus brief jointly submitted by the
3
Background. The Shrine is a Catholic religious
organization affiliated with the Missionaries of Our Lady of La
Salette (missionaries). The missionaries are members of the
Catholic faith who are inspired by what they believe to have
been an apparition of the Virgin Mary (Our Lady) to two children
in the village of La Salette, France, in 1846. Following that
event, supporters erected a shrine in La Salette to provide the
many pilgrims who began traveling there each year a space to
express their devotion. Since then, members of the Catholic
faith from around the world have erected shrines honoring Our
Lady in their respective countries. Although there are a number
of these shrines throughout the world, each country is permitted
only one designated national shrine. The Shrine in Attleboro,
which opened in 1953, became the national shrine for the United
States in 2009. Accordingly, thousands of people visit the
Shrine each year, ranging from the lone visitor who stays for
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, the Roman Catholic Bishop
of Fall River, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, and the
Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester. We also acknowledge the
amicus brief jointly submitted by the Massachusetts Council of
Churches; CAIR-Massachusetts; the Emanuel Gospel Center; the
Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts; the Episcopal Diocese of
Western Massachusetts; the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural
Center; the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of
Christ; the New England Conference of the United Methodist
Church; the New England Region of the Unitarian Universalist
Association; the New England Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America; Our Lady of Fatima Shrine, Holliston,
Massachusetts; and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism;
and joined by the New England Yearly Meeting of Friends and the
Worcester Islamic Center.
4
only a moment to thousands of international pilgrims who stay
for most of the day.
The Shrine is a Massachusetts not-for-profit organization
whose purposes are described in its articles of organization as
follows:
"To promote the devotion to Our Lady of La Salette through
the organization of public pilgrimages and through the
administration of the Sacraments of the Church; to provide
spiritual guidance to the pilgrims visiting the Shrine; to
provide food and housing, if necessary, for the proper care
of the pilgrims; to offer to said pilgrims the opportunity
of purchasing religious articles and books of all kinds; to
seek contributions for the development and support of said
Shrine; to use any or all of said funds for the religious
education of young men training for religious and
missionary priesthood; to provide funds to further foreign
missions; and to do such further acts as are necessary and
incidental to the carrying out of the purposes hereinbefore
set forth."
In keeping with the Shrine's purposes, visitors and
pilgrims can participate in a range of activities on the
Shrine's property. Each day, the Shrine holds a Mass and
provides the opportunity for confession. In addition, it offers
specialized prayer services and prayer groups at various times.
Each year, nearly 400,000 visitors make their way to the Shrine
between Thanksgiving and early January for its Festival of
Lights, during which the Shrine erects Christmas displays and
hangs approximately 400,000 Christmas lights. In addition to
these events, the Shrine hosts a variety of other functions and
activities, including retreats, concerts, and fundraisers.
5
In 2012, the fiscal year at issue, the Shrine carried out
its operations on 199 acres of property it owned in the city of
Attleboro (city). This case arises out of the city assessor's
determination that the Shrine owed property taxes in the amount
of $92,292.98, based on a valuation of $12,815,800, the taxable
portion of which was valued at $4,955,740. The Shrine paid its
property tax, with interest, and in January, 2013, filed an
application for abatement, which the city's board of assessors
(assessors) denied in April, 2013. The Shrine appealed to the
board, arguing that all of its property was exempt under Clause
Eleventh.2
The board, for purposes of its analysis, divided the
Shrine's property into eight distinct portions: (1) the
Shrine's church, (2) the indoor and outdoor chapels, (3) the
monastery, (4) the retreat center, (5) the welcome center and
surrounding land, (6) the maintenance building, (7) the former
convent, which was leased to a nonprofit organization that uses
the building as a safe house for battered women (safe house),
and (8) approximately 110 acres of "unimproved land" known as
2
The Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. (Shrine) also
claimed an exemption under G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third, which
exempts from taxation the real and personal property of a
"charitable organization" where the property is "occupied by it
or its officers for the purposes for which it is organized."
However, the Shrine later waived this claim after conceding that
it had failed to file the forms required to obtain such an
exemption.
6
the Attleboro Springs Wildlife Sanctuary (wildlife sanctuary).
The board determined that the first four portions of the
property (the church, the chapels, the monastery, and the
retreat center, including the surrounding land and parking
areas) were exempt under Clause Eleventh. It determined that
the welcome center was only partially exempt and that the
maintenance building, safe house, and wildlife sanctuary were
fully taxable. The Shrine appeals these latter four
determinations, so we describe at length the board's findings
regarding these portions of the property.
1. Welcome center. A typical pilgrimage to the Shrine
begins in the welcome center, where pilgrims and visitors are
shown a video presentation about Our Lady of La Salette. After
a visit to the Shrine church to pray or to the chapel for
confession, visitors return to the cafeteria in the welcome
center for lunch.3 The cafeteria also "functions as a soup
kitchen serving free meals to the poor every Monday, and it is
used on occasion as overflow space in which to host a lecture or
workshop offered by the [S]hrine." Visitors can also visit the
"bistro" in the welcome center, where a more limited menu of
food is available for purchase from noon to 5 P.M. each day.
3
The cafeteria does not charge pilgrims for lunch, apart
from a donation fee made in connection with the pilgrimage, and
it is not generally open to the public to purchase meals, except
during the Christmas Festival of Lights and during the season of
Lent.
7
The Shrine's gift shop is located in the welcome center, where
visitors can purchase religious items such as books, statues,
and rosary beads. The Shrine also offers other religious
lectures and programs in various spaces within the welcome
center.
In addition, the Shrine uses the welcome center and
surrounding land for various fundraising activities, including
"yard sales, a carnival, a circus, a clambake, and a Christmas
Bazaar." The Shrine sometimes hosted these events in
partnership with third parties, including various artists,
vendors, and, in at least one instance, a for-profit
entertainment company. The events yielded various amounts for
the Shrine, ranging from $2,000 to $10,000.4
The Shrine also grants access to the welcome center and
surrounding land to various public, religious, and nonprofit
groups for various events, and to private groups and individuals
for private functions. For instance, the welcome center has
been used by the city as a polling station during elections, by
the Lions Club for an antique car show fundraiser, by a Native
American group for a powwow, and by the American Red Cross for a
blood drive. In addition, the Shrine has leased the welcome
4
The Shrine operated the carnival in connection with a for-
profit entertainment company. The company received sixty per
cent of the profits, and the Shrine received forty per cent,
yielding $10,000 for the Shrine.
8
center to "a family for a baptismal party; . . . a family for a
wedding rehearsal dinner; . . . and . . . a for-profit
transportation company for a presentation on religious tours and
travel." Typically, these groups made donations ranging from
$200 to $1,000 to the Shrine in return for the use of the space,
but the Shrine allowed the American Red Cross to use the space
for free.
The board determined that the Shrine "used [the welcome
center and surrounding land] in part for 'religious worship or
instruction,' and in part for other purposes, such as
fundraising activities and private functions." The board found
that the assessors were correct to tax the welcome center using
a prorated or apportioned basis, wherein the assessors
calculated taxes due according to the percentage of time each
portion was used for secular rather than religious activity.
The board agreed with the assessors' determination that the
welcome center and surrounding land were taxable at forty per
cent of their value and sixty per cent exempt.
2. Maintenance building. The Shrine used the maintenance
building to store "display items for the Festival of Lights
during the off season; inventory for the gift shop; and golf
carts and other maintenance vehicles and equipment used on the
subject property." The board found the building fully taxable
because it was not used for "'religious worship or instruction'
9
within the meaning of Clause Eleventh," and it was "immaterial"
whether the building furthered the Shrine's charitable purposes
if those purposes did not constitute religious worship or
instruction.
3. Safe house. The Shrine leased the former convent to a
nonprofit organization that uses the building as a safe house
for battered women. The board found it fully taxable because it
was no longer a parsonage and was not being used for "religious
worship or instruction." The board noted that the safe house's
furtherance of a charitable purpose may have qualified this
portion of the property for an exemption under Clause Third, had
the Shrine filed the required documents for this exemption. See
note 2, supra.
4. Wildlife sanctuary. The board found that, in 2009, the
Shrine granted the Massachusetts Audubon Society a conservation
easement over the wildlife sanctuary,5 and that organization
subsequently managed it in accordance with the easement "as an
area containing open space and walking trails and available to
the public for passive recreation." The board found that the
wildlife sanctuary was not being used for religious worship or
instruction, and noted that its furtherance of a charitable
5
The Shrine later transferred the fee interest to the
Massachusetts Audubon Society, but was the owner of record for
the fiscal year at issue.
10
purpose may have qualified it for an exemption under Clause
Third had the Shrine filed the required documents.
The board concluded "that the assessors properly exempted
so much of the subject property that qualified for the exemption
under Clause Eleventh," and that the Shrine "failed to prove its
entitlement to an abatement." The Shrine appealed from the
board's determination, and we granted its application for direct
appellate review.
Discussion. General Laws c. 59, § 2, articulates the
general rule that "[a]ll property, real and personal, . . .
unless expressly exempt, shall be subject to taxation." The
specific exemptions from taxation are enumerated in G. L. c. 59,
§ 5. At issue here is the interpretation of the scope of Clause
Eleventh, which exempts from taxation:
"[H]ouses of religious worship owned by, or held in trust
for the use of, any religious organization, and the pews
and furniture and each parsonage so owned . . . for the
exclusive benefit of the religious organizations, . . . but
such exemption shall not, except as herein provided, extend
to any portion of any such house of religious worship
appropriated for purposes other than religious worship or
instruction. The occasional or incidental use of such
property by an organization exempt from taxation under the
provisions of [26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)] of the Federal
Internal Revenue Code shall not be deemed to be an
appropriation for purposes other than religious worship or
instruction."
Exemption statutes, such as Clause Eleventh, are "strictly
construed, and the burden lies with the party seeking an
exemption to demonstrate that it qualifies according to the
11
express terms or the necessary implication of a statute
providing the exemption." New England Forestry Found., Inc. v.
Assessors of Hawley, 468 Mass. 138, 148-149 (2014), citing
Milton v. Ladd, 348 Mass. 762, 765 (1965). "We uphold findings
of fact of the board that are supported by substantial evidence.
We review conclusions of law, including questions of statutory
construction, de novo." New England Forestry Found., Inc.,
supra at 149, citing Bridgewater State Univ. Found. v. Assessors
of Bridgewater, 463 Mass. 154, 156 (2012). We give weight to
the board's interpretation of tax statutes, however, because the
"board is an agency charged with administering the tax law and
has 'expertise in tax matters.'" AA Transp. Co. v. Commissioner
of Revenue, 454 Mass. 114, 119 (2009), quoting RHI Holdings,
Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 681, 685
(2001). But "principles of deference . . . are not principles
of abdication." Commissioner of Revenue v. Gillette Co., 454
Mass. 72, 75-76 (2009), quoting Duarte v. Commissioner of
Revenue, 451 Mass. 399, 411 (2008). "Ultimately, . . . the
interpretation of a statute is a matter for the courts." Onex
Communications Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 457 Mass. 419,
424 (2010).
In interpreting the scope of Clause Eleventh, we recognize
that a house of religious worship is more than the chapel used
for prayer and the classrooms used for religious instruction.
12
It includes the parking lot where congregants park their
vehicles, the anteroom where they greet each other and leave
their coats and jackets, the parish hall where they congregate
in religious fellowship after prayer services, the offices for
the clergy and staff, and the storage area where the extra
chairs are stored for high holy days. In some houses of
religious worship, all of these portions of property (apart from
the parking area) may be located with the chapel in a single
building; in others with larger congregations, they may be
located in multiple buildings, some adjoining the chapel, some
standing alone. We have long recognized that all of these
portions of property are exempt from taxation under Clause
Eleventh even if no religious worship occurs within these
spaces; it suffices that they are used for "purposes connected
with" religious worship, Proprietors of the S. Congregational
Meetinghouse in Lowell v. Lowell, 1 Met. 538, 541 (1840), or,
otherwise stated, purposes that "normally accompany and
supplement the religious work of a parish." Assessors of
Framingham v. First Parish in Framingham, 329 Mass. 212, 215
(1952).
The Shrine is indisputably a house of religious worship,
but it is not a typical one, because it is not a parish with a
congregation but a national shrine of the Missionaries where
thousands of pilgrims and visitors come for prayer, confession,
13
religious retreats, and religious education, and, during the
Christmas season, to find religious inspiration from its
Festival of Lights. We address separately the four portions of
property at issue on appeal.
1. Welcome center. The board recognized that the welcome
center was used at times for "religious worship or instruction"
because religious lectures or programs were offered, but it also
found that the welcome center was used for purposes other than
"religious worship or instruction," such as fundraising
activities, including a Christmas Bazaar. The board also found
that "religious worship or instruction" did not occur in the
bistro or gift shop, "though they may have served to promote the
[Shrine's] religious purposes in general." The board concluded
that, where properties owned by religious organizations are used
only in part for "religious worship or instruction," Clause
Eleventh "allows" them "to be taxed on an apportioned basis."
The board defined far too narrowly the scope of the
religious exemption. A video presentation about Our Lady of La
Salette plainly is religious instruction. Pilgrims and visitors
who spend hours at the Shrine need to eat and drink, so the
cafeteria and bistro are "connected with" religious worship, and
"accompany and supplement" the religious work of the Shrine by
sparing pilgrims and visitors the need to bring their own food
and drink or leave the Shrine in order to find it. See
14
Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass. at 215; Proprietors of the S.
Congregational Meetinghouse in Lowell, 1 Met. at 541. Those who
are inspired by the Shrine may obtain religious objects and
books at the gift shop that might allow them to continue their
religious worship and instruction when they leave. The fact
that money earned from the cafeteria, bistro, and gift shop may
help pay for the Shrine's expenses does not remove them from the
realm of religious worship and instruction; even a church cannot
live on prayer alone.
Nor is it appropriate for the board to tax the welcome
center "on an apportioned basis" based on the assessor's
estimation of the percentage of nonreligious use of the welcome
center. By the board's logic, a church whose parish hall is
used for occasional bake sales, rummage sales, and holiday
bazaars to raise money for the church, and the occasional
wedding reception, could have its parish hall taxed on an
apportioned basis based on an assessor's estimation of the
percentage of its use that is not for "religious worship or
instruction." Clause Eleventh, however, provides that the
exemption shall not "extend to any portion of any such house of
religious worship appropriated for purposes other than religious
worship or instruction." By choosing the word "appropriated,"
the Legislature expressed its intent that a portion of a house
of religious worship shall either be exempt or not exempt, based
15
on its "dominant purpose." See Assessors of Framingham, 329
Mass. at 216 ("[t]he right of exemption from taxation . . .
depends on the dominant purpose for which the rooms are
maintained and their actual use for that purpose").
The dominant purpose test thus considers, as to each
portion of church property, whether its dominant purpose is
religious worship or instruction or connected with religious
worship or instruction (and is therefore exempt from taxation),
or whether its dominant purpose is something other than
religious worship or instruction (and therefore has been
"appropriated for purposes other than religious worship or
instruction"). See Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass. at 216;
G. L. c. 59, § 5, Eleventh. See generally 4 W.W. Bassett, W.C.
Durham, Jr., & R.T. Smith, Religious Organizations and the Law
§ 17:90 (2013) ("primary use" standard has been "almost
universally adopted" by States in determining property tax
exemptions for religious institutions).
We do not infer from the revision of Clause Eleventh in
1980 (which added the provision that "[t]he occasional or
incidental use of such property by an organization exempt from
taxation under the provisions of [26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code] shall not be deemed to be an
appropriation for purposes other than religious worship or
instruction") that the Legislature intended that the occasional
16
or incidental use of property by a person or entity other than a
nonprofit organization shall be deemed such an appropriation.
See 1980 House Doc. No. 6373. The addition of this provision
should be read to reflect nothing more than a legislative intent
to assure religious institutions that they do not risk their tax
exemption by allowing nonprofit organizations occasionally to
use their facilities for meetings and events. It cannot
reasonably be read to suggest a rejection of the dominant
purpose test articulated prior to this statutory revision in
Assessors of Framingham, which affirmed that the exemption
applied to a church building that had occasionally been used for
wedding receptions, auction sales, and card parties, as well as
meetings of organizations that were likely not tax-exempt
nonprofit organizations. See Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass.
at 213-214, 216.
In conclusion, the board committed an error of law in
failing to apply the dominant purpose test to the welcome
center. Because the dominant purpose of the welcome center is
"connected with" religious worship and instruction, and
"accompan[ies] and supplement[s]" the religious work of the
Shrine, we conclude that it should have been entirely exempt
under Clause Eleventh. See Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass.
at 215; Proprietors of the S. Congregational Meetinghouse in
Lowell, 1 Met. at 541.
17
2. Maintenance building. The board found that the
maintenance building is used to store display items for the
Festival of Lights during the off season, inventory for the gift
shop, and maintenance vehicles used on the Shrine's property.
In essence, the maintenance building is the equivalent for a
larger church of the storage cellar or storage shed of a smaller
church, and is similarly connected with the religious work of
the Shrine. The Festival of Lights during the Christmas season
is part of the Shrine's celebration of Christmas, so the storage
of lights in the off season is a purpose connected with
religious worship. See Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass. at
216. As earlier noted, the gift shop is also connected with
religious worship and instruction, so the storage of its
inventory is a purpose connected with such worship and
instruction. Maintenance vehicles assist Shrine staff in
maintaining the Shrine and its grounds, so the storage of these
vehicles is also connected to religious worship and instruction.
The board correctly found that the parking lot of the Shrine was
exempt from taxation; the building where the maintenance
vehicles are kept that are used to clear that parking lot from
snow and ice in the winter were equally exempt. Because the
dominant purpose of the maintenance building is connected with
the religious worship and instruction offered at the Shrine, we
18
conclude that the board erred in declining to find it exempt
from taxation under Clause Eleventh.
3. Safe house. The Shrine argues that the portion of its
property leased to a nonprofit organization and used as a safe
house for battered women should have been exempt because it was
incidental to the over-all use of the Shrine's property as a
place of religious worship and instruction, and because it
furthered the Shrine's religious mission of performing
charitable deeds in the community. We disagree for three
reasons.
First, we decline to adopt the Shrine's argument that the
dominant purpose test is an "all or nothing" test regarding the
exemption of church property, i.e., that an assessor must look
at the entirety of a church's property and determine whether the
dominant purpose of that property is religious worship or
instruction, such that the entirety of the property is either
exempt or not. Clause Eleventh, in providing that the exemption
shall not "extend to any portion of any such house of religious
worship appropriated for purposes other than religious worship
or instruction," expressly recognizes that the exemption
analysis must focus separately on each "portion" of a house of
religious worship. This court conducted such an analysis in
Proprietors of the S. Congregational Meetinghouse in Lowell, 1
Met. at 540-541, where the second floor of a building erected by
19
a "religious society" was used as a place of worship and a
vestry, and six "tenements" on the first floor were rented as
commercial stores, with the income from the rentals used to pay
the money borrowed to purchase the land and erect the building.
The court held that "the exemption in the statute extended to
that part of the property only which was used as a place of
worship, and for purposes connected with it . . . such as the
vestry, the furnace and the like . . . but did not extend to
separate tenements used for purposes exclusively secular." Id.
at 541. The appropriate analysis focuses on whether the
dominant purpose of each portion of the property, rather than
the property as a whole, is religious worship or instruction.
Second, we recognize that religion embraces charitable
deeds and providing help to those in need, but we also recognize
that the Legislature did not include within the scope of Clause
Eleventh "any portion of any . . . house of religious worship
appropriated for purposes other than religious worship and
instruction" (emphasis added). Here, the nonprofit
organization's use of the property as a safe house was
"permanent and exclusive," see Assessors of Framingham, 329
Mass. at 216, rather than "occasional or incidental." See G. L.
c. 59, § 5, Eleventh. Where a house of religious worship grants
a "permanent and exclusive" lease of a portion of its property
to a nonprofit organization to perform a charitable mission,
20
rather than religious worship or instruction, we conclude that
this portion of its property was "appropriated for purposes
other than religious worship and instruction" under Clause
Eleventh.
Our conclusion is strongly supported by the legislative
history regarding the amendment to Clause Eleventh enacted in
1980 that inserted the provision making clear that the
"occasional or incidental use" by a nonprofit organization of a
portion of a house of religious worship's property "shall not be
deemed to be an appropriation for purposes other than religious
worship or instruction." The original version of the bill would
have extended the exemption to "any portion . . . appropriated
for the purpose of any [nonprofit organization]." 1980 House
Doc. No. 3699. The Governor returned the bill to the
Legislature, declaring that he agreed with the bill's underlying
purpose to ensure religious institutions the ability to allow
"charitable organizations of the community [to] use their rooms
or facilities without fear of exemption loss," but was concerned
that the bill was "much too broad" because "[i]t would grant tax
exemption to the permanent and exclusive non-religious use of
church owned property." See 1980 House Doc. No. 6373. The
resulting amendment allows nonprofit organizations, many of
which are charitable organizations, to use property owned by
houses of religious worship without risk to the exemption so
21
long as that use was merely occasional and incidental. Compare
G. L. c. 59, § 5, Eleventh, as amended through St. 1980, c. 411,
with 1980 House Doc. No. 3699.
Third, the Legislature expressly provides an exemption from
taxation for the real and personal property of a charitable
organization occupied for a charitable purpose, but that
exemption is under Clause Third, not Clause Eleventh. Had the
Shrine timely filed the documents required under Clause Third,
it might have obtained an exemption for the safe house. The
Shrine cannot avoid its obligation to file these documents under
Clause Third by claiming that charitable deeds fall within the
rubric of religious worship and education under Clause Eleventh.
4. Wildlife sanctuary. For essentially the same reasons
that we affirm the board's determination regarding the safe
house, we affirm its determination that the wildlife sanctuary
was fully taxable. The Shrine notes that it used the sanctuary
for meditative walks and granted a conservation easement to the
Massachusetts Audubon Society in 2009 to "promote . . .
ecospirituality and reconciliation with the creation." The
easement grants general rights of access to the public while
reserving access rights for those affiliated with the Shrine.
According to the Shrine, the easement's express purpose, coupled
with the Shrine's use of the property for meditative walks,
establish that the Shrine used this property for religious
22
worship, and any secular use of the property was incidental to
this purpose. But under the terms of the easement, the Shrine
transferred to the Society the "exclusive right and
responsibility to manage the [wildlife sanctuary]" and perform a
range of conservation-related activities (emphasis added). This
grant of access to a nonprofit organization, coupled with
unrestricted public access rights, represents a "permanent and
exclusive" appropriation of this portion of the Shrine's
property for a dominant charitable purpose.
We appreciate that a wildlife sanctuary may be for some a
spiritual sanctuary, much as working in a safe house may be for
some the realization of a spiritual mission. But the
Legislature did not intend either a wildlife sanctuary or a safe
house, when used and operated as they were here, to qualify as a
house of religious worship. Where their dominant purpose is
charitable, both might have been exempt from taxation under
Clause Third, but neither was exempt under Clause Eleventh.
Conclusion. For the reasons stated above, we reverse the
board's determination under Clause Eleventh that the welcome
center was taxable in part and that the maintenance building was
taxable in full, and affirm the board's determination that the
safe house and the wildlife sanctuary were subject to taxation.
We remand the case to the board for a determination regarding
the amount of the abatement.
23
So ordered.