The Chapel v. Testa

129 Ohio St. 3d 21, 2011-Ohio-545 (2011) · Supreme Court of Ohio · February 10, 2011 · No. 2010-0562

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that land owned by a religious institution and made available to the public without charge for recreational use qualifies for a charitable-use exemption under R.C. 5709.12(B). The court concluded that religious ownership or motivation does not defeat the exemption when the property’s use is otherwise charitable, reversed the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision, and remanded for further proceedings concerning the exemption and the recreational acreage.

Holdings

  1. Property owned by an institution and made accessible to the general public without charge for recreational use is used for a charitable purpose and is exempt under R.C. 5709.12(B), provided the statutory requirements are otherwise satisfied.
  2. Neither ownership by a religious institution nor religious motivations connected with an otherwise charitable use defeats an exemption under R.C. 5709.12(B).
  3. The tax commissioner waived reliance on the argument that the recreational use began after the applicable tax-lien date by failing to raise the issue in the final determination or in the commissioner's brief before the Board of Tax Appeals.
  4. The recreational acreage, stated by the Board of Tax Appeals to total 18.6795 acres, is exempt based on public recreational use, and the matter must be remanded for the Board to effectuate the exemption and delineate the exempt acreage.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether recreational acreage owned by a religious institution and made available to the general public without charge constitutes an exclusively charitable use exempt from taxation under R.C. 5709.12(B).
  2. Whether the recreational use was ineligible for charitable-use exemption because it was ancillary to the church's public-worship activities or motivated by the church's religious mission.
  3. Whether the tax commissioner waived reliance on the argument that the recreational use did not exist on the applicable tax-lien date by failing to raise that issue in the final determination and before the Board of Tax Appeals.
  4. Whether the matter should be remanded for the Board of Tax Appeals to determine the precise boundaries and amount of recreational acreage eligible for exemption.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (19)

  • Satullo v. Wilkins, 111 Ohio St. 3d 399, 856 N.E.2d 954 (2006)(followed)
  • American National Can Co. v. Tracy, 72 Ohio St. 3d 150, 648 N.E.2d 483 (1995)(followed)
  • Gahanna-Jefferson Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Zaino, 93 Ohio St. 3d 231, 754 N.E.2d 789 (2001)(followed)
  • Akron Centre Plaza, L.L.C. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 128 Ohio St. 3d 145, 942 N.E.2d 1042 (2010)(followed)
  • Highland Park Owners, Inc. v. Tracy, 71 Ohio St. 3d 405, 644 N.E.2d 284 (1994)(followed)
  • Faith Fellowship Ministries, Inc. v. Limbach, 32 Ohio St. 3d 432, 513 N.E.2d 1340 (1987)(limited)
  • Moraine Hts. Baptist Church v. Kinney, 12 Ohio St. 3d 134, 465 N.E.2d 1281 (1984)(limited)
  • True Christianity Evangelism v. Tracy, 87 Ohio St. 3d 48, 716 N.E.2d 1154 (1999)(followed)
  • White Cross Hosp. Assn. v. Bd. of Tax Appeals, 38 Ohio St. 2d 199, 311 N.E.2d 862 (1974)(followed)
  • True Christianity Evangelism v. Tracy, 91 Ohio St. 3d 117, 742 N.E.2d 638 (2001)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court