Facility not predominately used for charitable purposes is taxable

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Despite a claim that labor unions are “inherently” charitable in nature and have historically been granted property tax exemptions, the Indiana Tax Court affirmed that one union’s banquet facility is 100 percent taxable.

In a ruling posted late Thursday in 6787 Steelworkers Hall, Inc. v. John R. Scott, Assessor of Porter County, No. 49T10-0906-TA-27, Tax Court Judge Thomas Fisher affirmed the Indiana Board of Tax Review decision that the union’s banquet facility is not exempt from property taxation.

The Tax Court was asked to decide whether the Indiana Board for Tax Review’s denial of the exemption application was supported by substantial evidence.

Local 6787 owned and operated a banquet facility and a union hall in Portage. In June 2006, Local 6787 filed an exemption application with the Porter County Assessor for an educational-purposes exemption on both of its buildings, the land, and the personal property there. In December 2006, the Porter County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals determined that Local 6787’s union hall, the personal property, and the land was exempt from property taxation but the banquet facility was 100 percent taxable. Local 6787 filed a petition for review with the Indiana Board of Tax Review.

The union claimed the banquet facility’s eligibility for an educational/charitable purposes exemption was “obvious.” The union noted that Ivy Tech taught culinary courses – primarily for Local 6787 members – in the facility, and other charitable organizations such as the American Heart Association and the United Way used the facility free-of-charge. Local 6787 also showed a schedule of events and a summary of the facility’s overall usage: it was used 41.67 percent of the time for union-related activities, 44.44 percent of the time for culinary classes, and 13.89 percent of the time for weddings/banquets. It claimed the facility was eligible for an 86.11 percent exemption for 2006.

However, the board concluded the union had not demonstrated that the banquet facility was predominately used for educational/charitable purposes.

The union asserted that the board’s final determination must be reversed because Local 6787 prima facie established that the banquet facility was used 86.11 percent of the time for educational or charitable purposes. The union argued that it demonstrated that both its organizational purposes and uses of the banquet facility were educationally and charitably grounded because, among other things, labor unions are “‘inherently” charitable and have historically been granted property tax exemptions – the union hall had always been exempted from property taxation.

Judge Fisher wrote the union’s claim does not establish that it predominately used its banquet facility for charitable or educational purposes. Also, Local 6787 did not provide any citations to Indiana statutes or caselaw for the proposition that unions are inherently charitable. Because its union hall qualified for a property tax exemption in the past doesn’t mean that its banquet facility should be automatically deemed exempt for the year at issue.

While Local 6787’s bylaws indicate the organization has some charitable or educational intent, such intent does not establish predominate use.

Local 6787’s educational uses of the banquet facility were insufficient to support a finding of predominate use because the facility was used for such activities less than 50 percent of the time for 2006.

Judge Fisher concluded, “The evaluation of whether property is used for educational/charitable purposes is a fact-sensitive inquiry; there are no bright-line tests. See Jamestown Homes, 914 N.E.2d at 15 (citation omitted). Here, the Indiana Board’s final determination indicates that it assigned minimal weight to Local 6787’s arguments because they were not supported by substantial evidence. As the fact finder, it was well within the purview of the Indiana Board to make that determination.”


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.