ILNews

Nonprofit unable to prove it is entitled to charitable tax exemption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court Friday upheld the decision to deny a charitable purposes exemption for the 2006 tax year to a Bartholomew County nonprofit that provides housing for low-income residents. The court agreed the nonprofit failed to show that its rental properties qualified for the exemption under I.C. 6-1.1-10-16.

Housing Partnerships builds or rehabs housing units and rents or sells them to low- and moderate-income people who may not otherwise be able to obtain safe and decent housing. The organization receives income from donations, federal grants and the money it receives from the sale and rental of its units.

In 2006, Housing Partnerships sought an exemption on each of its rental properties and its administrative office, claiming they were entitled to the exemption outlined in I.C. 6-1.1-10-16 because they were used to provide housing to low-income residents. Its application was denied, and the Indiana Board of Tax Review ruled in 2010 that the organization failed to establish a prima facie case that the properties are entitled to the tax exemption.

Because the provision of low-income housing is not per se a charitable purpose, Housing Partnerships needed to demonstrate that it was taking on a task that would otherwise fall to the government, thus providing a benefit to the community as a whole because the government is able to direct its funds to other community needs.

In Housing Partnerships, Inc. v. Tom Owens, Bartholomew County Assessor, 49T10-1005-TA-23, Housing Partnerships argued that the final determination must be overturned because it is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion because the board ignored Housing Partnerships’ evidence. It also argued that the final determination is contrary to law.

The IBTR explained that the evidence showed that Housing Partnerships was “a good landlord” and did some “nice things for its tenants,” but it did not demonstrate that the subject properties were owned, occupied and predominately used for a charitable purpose as that term is used in I.C. 6-1.1-10-16. The board’s conclusion that a taxpayer must show more than just good deeds and a nonprofit status is supported by Tax Court caselaw, Judge Martha Wentworth wrote. Housing Partnerships also did not provide evidence that it has relieved the government of an expense that it would have otherwise borne.

Wentworth also found reasonable the board’s conclusion that Housing Partnerships did not provide facts showing that its provision of low-income housing met the legal requirements of a charitable purpose that would entitle it to an exemption from property taxes.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT