ILNews

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.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT