DocketNumber: TC-MD 091589B.
Judges: JEFFREY S. MATTSON, Magistrate.
Filed Date: 1/28/2011
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
A trial was convened on June 2, 2010. Plaintiff was represented by Stacey Orr, Executive Director. Deborah Attwood and Sally Brown participated for Defendant. Subsequently, written information was filed by Plaintiff on July 12, 2010.
Plaintiff applied for a real property tax exemption, pursuant to ORS 307.130, 1 for the 2009-10 tax year. That request was denied by Defendant in a letter dated September 1, 2009. This appeal followed.
The subject property is office space that houses the Oregon Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) administrative personnel and functions. From written submissions and sworn testimony, the following key facts are found.
* Promote the quality of social work;*Page 2* Improve conditions of life in society;
* Maintain high standards of practice;
* Alleviate deprivation, distress and strain among the public; and
* Promote diversity, inclusion, cultural competency and social justice.
(Ptfs Compl at 3.)
Continuing education programs are planned and presented. (Id. at 4.) In fiscal year 2009-10, there were 15 continuing education courses, open to members and nonmembers. (Def s Ltr at 3, Jul 12, 2010.) One event was free and the others were discounted for some participants. (Id)
Educational information is available to all via the group's internet website. (Id) That is not restricted to members only. (See Id.) A social worker directory is maintained. (Ptf s Compl at 4.)
Defendant argues that the NASW activities primarily benefit group members and not the public at large. They cite that certain information is not present in this record, such as the dollar amount of donations received, the dollar value of gifts provided and any specific breakdown between NASW members and the general public. *Page 3
Plaintiff alleges that the subject property qualifies for exemption from property taxation because it meets the statutory requirements of ORS 307.130(2), which provides that:
"Upon compliance with ORS 307.162, the following property owned or being purchased by * * * charitable * * * institutions shall be exempt from taxation:
"(a) Except as provided in ORS 748.414, only such real or personal property, or proportion thereof, as is actually and exclusively occupied or used in * * * charitable * * * work carried on by such institutions."
When looking at statutes granting exemption, the court must remember the principle that taxation is the rule, and exemption from taxation is the exception. Dove Lewis Mem. Emer. Vet. Clinic v. Dept. of Rev.,
The key inquiry for the court is whether there is substantial giving to others beyond Plaintiff's own members. The Oregon Supreme Court has stated:
"[T]here are three elements to qualifying as a `charitable institution' under ORS 307.130: (1) the organization must have charity as its primary, if not sole, object; (2) the organization must be performing in a manner that furthers its charitable object; and (3) the organization's performance must involve a gift or giving."
SW Oregon,
The third prong of the SW Oregon test is whether the performance of Plaintiff involves a gift or giving. "In determining whether an organization is, by its conduct, charitable, the crucial *Page 4
consideration is the element of a gift or giving." Dove Lewis,
A nonprofit organization meets the element of gift or giving if the organization "receive[s] limited donations * * * [and] appl[ies] those donations and substantial volunteer labor" to its charitable services.See Rigas Maja, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev.,
Upon close review, it is clear that Plaintiff is a caring and helpful organization. However, it appears to be more of a members' network and support group, with some (perhaps insignificant) residual benefit to the general public. In this record, there is no quantification of the gifting. No percentages were provided nor allocations estimated. Conclusions are advanced; documentation is absent.
Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must establish its case by a "preponderance" of the evidence. See ORS 305.427. A "[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence." Feves v. Dept. of Revenue,
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that the appeal is denied.
Dated this ____ day of January 2011.
If you want to appeal this Decision, file a Complaint in the RegularDivision of the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to: 1163 State Street,Salem, OR 97301-2563; or by hand delivery to: Fourth Floor, 1241 StateStreet, Salem, OR. Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the date ofthe Decision or this Decision becomes final and cannot be changed. This document was signed by Magistrate Jeffrey S. Mattson on January28, 2011. The Court filed and entered this document on January 28, 2011.
Reed v. Department of Revenue , 310 Or. 260 ( 1990 )
Dove Lewis Memorial Emergency Veterinary Clinic, Inc. v. ... , 301 Or. 423 ( 1986 )
SW OR. PUB. DEF. SERVICES v. Dept. of Rev. , 312 Or. 82 ( 1991 )
Rigas Maja, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. , 12 Or. Tax 471 ( 1993 )
Mazamas v. Dept. of Rev. , 12 Or. Tax 414 ( 1993 )
North Harbour Corp. v. Department of Revenue , 16 Or. Tax 91 ( 2002 )
Mercy Medical Center, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev. , 12 Or. Tax 305 ( 1992 )