Housing Partnerships, Inc. v. Tom Owens, Bartholomew County Assessor

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
MICHAEL N. RED GREGORY F. ZOELLER
SANDRA K. BICKEL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
MORSE & BICKEL, P.C. JESSICA E. REAGAN
Indianapolis, IN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indianapolis, IN
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE:
PAUL M. JONES, JR.
MATTHEW J. EHINGER Sep 04 2014, 3:15 pm
INDIANA ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Indianapolis, IN
IN THE
INDIANA TAX COURT
HOUSING PARTNERSHIPS, INC., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 49T10-1005-TA-23
)
TOM OWENS, BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY )
ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
ORDER ON PETITIONER’S PETITION FOR REHEARING
FOR PUBLICATION
September 4, 2014
WENTWORTH, J.
On June 4, 2014, the Court issued an opinion in Housing Partnerships, Inc. v.
Tom Owens, Bartholomew County Assessor, 10 N.E.3d 1057 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014),
holding that Housing Partnerships failed to show that its rental properties qualified for
the charitable purposes exemption under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-16 for the 2006 tax
year. See Housing P’ships, Inc. v. Owens, 10 N.E.3d 1057, 1059 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014).
Housing Partnerships now requests the Court to reverse that decision. The Court
denies its request.
ANALYSIS
In its Petition for Rehearing, Housing Partnerships acknowledges that eligibility
for the charitable purposes exemption requires a showing that 1) it owned, occupied,
and used its property for purposes that relieve human want by acts different than the
everyday activities of man, and 2) its activities benefit the public sufficiently to justify the
loss of tax revenue. (See Pet’r Br. Supp. Pet. Reh’g (“Pet’r Br.”) at 1.) Housing
Partnerships asks for a reversal, however, claiming the Court not only failed to
recognize the substantial evidence that demonstrated its activities relieve the
government of a burden it would otherwise bear, but also misconstrued the holding in
Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka, Inc. v. St. Joseph County Assessor, 909 N.E.2d 1138(Ind. Tax Ct. 2009), review denied. (See, e.g., Pet’r Br. at 4-5, 10-12.) Because
Housing Partnerships advanced this same rationale as grounds to reverse the Indiana
Board’s final determination, the Court now clarifies why Housing Partnerships did not
merit the exemption.
In its opinion, the Court recognized that Housing Partnerships provided
substantial evidence to the Indiana Board demonstrating that it owned, occupied, and
used its property to provide affordable housing and financial counseling to low-income
residents of Bartholomew County. See Housing P’ships, Inc., 10 N.E.3d at 1061-62.
2
Nonetheless, the provision of low-income housing is not per se a charitable purpose,
i.e., good and noble deeds alone do not satisfy the requirements for a charitable
purposes exemption. See Tipton Cnty. Health Care Found., Inc. v. Tipton Cnty.
Assessor, 961 N.E.2d 1048, 1052 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012); Jamestown Homes of
Mishawaka, Inc. v. St. Joseph Cnty. Assessor, 909 N.E.2d 1138, 1144 (Ind. Tax Ct.
2009), review denied. Evidence is still required that good deeds relieve the government
of a cost it would otherwise bear, showing that Housing Partnerships engages in its
activities to provide a public benefit not for private profit. See Tipton Cnty. Health Care
Found., 961 N.E.2d at 1053 (distinguishing between an arrangement that is exempt
because it was entered into for a public benefit not a profit motive); College Corner, L.P.
v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 840 N.E.2d 905, 910 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (stating that “when
a private organization takes on a task that would otherwise fall to the government, this
provides a benefit to the community as a whole because it allows the government to
direct its funds and attention to other community needs”).
While Housing Partnerships laid out its good works, it made only conclusory
statements about how those good works lessened government’s financial burdens. See
Housing P’ships, Inc., 10 N.E.3d at 1063. Moreover, Housing Partnerships failed to
distinguish the government grants it received from those that defeated the exemption in
Jamestown Homes. Id. at 1063-64. Housing Partnerships’ failure to tie its good deeds
to a public benefit is like holding out several pearls to admire as a necklace without
actually stringing the pearls together. No matter how much the Court admires the good
deeds done, it cannot make up for this failure and be the advocate.
3
CONCLUSION
Both in its original tax appeal and its Petition for Rehearing, Housing
Partnerships used only conclusory statements to link the evidence of its good deeds to
how its good deeds lessen governmental burdens. This is insufficient to show that it is
entitled to a charitable purposes exemption for the 2006 tax year. Accordingly, the
Court grants rehearing for the limited purpose of providing the above clarification and
otherwise DENIES Housing Partnerships’ Petition for Rehearing.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of September 2014.
___________________________
Martha Blood Wentworth
Judge, Indiana Tax Court
DISTRIBUTION:
Michael N. Red, Sandra K. Bickel, MORSE & BICKEL, P.C., 320 N. Meridian Street,
Suite 506, Indianapolis, IN 46204;
Gregory F. Zoeller, Indiana Attorney General, By: Jessica E. Reagan, Deputy
Attorney General, Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor, 302 West
Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204;
Paul M. Jones, Jr., Matthew J. Ehinger, ICE MILLER LLP, One American Square,
Suite 2900, Indianapolis, IN 46282;
Indiana Board of Tax Review, 100 North Senate Avenue, Room N-1026, Indianapolis,
IN 46204.
4