Appeal of City of Concord, 13 A.3d 186

HCA is a 501(c)(3) charity organized under RSA 292 seeking a RSA 72:23 exemption for the portion of its 8 Green Street, Concord property it occupies.
BTLA granted exemption for the portion occupied; City denied exemption in 2006; HCA appealed to BTLA, and BTLA affirmed exemption on the statutory grounds.
HCA's mission includes promoting home health care, education, training, public policy advocacy, and serving the public health; it operates through member providers and public programs.
HCA owns a wholly-owned subsidiary, GSHHA, which lobbies the legislature; governance and activities of HCA and GSHHA are interdependent; office space is shared with GSHHA; part of the property is leased to a non-exempt third party.
The City argues HCA is primarily a trade association benefiting members, not the general public; the BTLA found the general public benefits from HCA's activities, but the court must examine whether such benefits are dominant or merely incidental.
The court vacates the BTLA decision and remands for further proceedings, including allocation of use between HCA and GSHHA for exempt vs non-exempt occupancy and address the ongoing attorney-seat issue for ripeness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether HCA was established and administered for a charitable purpose.	HCA's dominant purpose is public-serving and charitable.	HCA primarily serves members; public benefit is incidental.	Remanded for further fact-finding on dominant purpose.
Whether HCA's activities primarily serve the public or its members, under ElderTrust factors.	Public benefit is substantial and not merely incidental.	HCA functions as a trade association benefiting members.	Remanded to assess dominant purpose and relative benefit.
Whether HCA's use of the property is sufficiently direct and substantial to justify exemption given GSHHA's activities.	The use and occupation relate to HCA's charitable mission.	GSHHA's use may undermine exemption unless properly allocated.	Remanded to allocate exempt vs non-exempt use per Alton Bay Camp Meeting.
Whether GSHHA is a separate charitable entity for purposes of exemption and how its use affects HCA's exemption.	GSHHA's activities do not negate HCA's exemption if properly attributed.	GSHHA's separate status and use must be analyzed for exemption impact.	Remanded to determine allocation and impact on exemption.
Whether the BTLA erred in denying the City an attorney as a temporary board member.	Recusal issue is not ripe for review and not clearly unlawful.	Recusal prevents proper representation; issue ripe for review.	Ripeness and scope decline to review; issue not resolved here.

ElderTrust of Florida, Inc. v. Town of Epsom, 154 NH 693 (2007) (four-factor test for charitable exemption)
MacDowell Colony v. Town of Peterborough, 157 NH 1 (2008) (dominant public-benefit requirement )
Massachusetts Medical Society v. Assessors of Boston, 340 Mass. 327 (1960) (dominant-purpose test for charitable status)
Housing Partnership v. Town of Rollinsford, 141 NH 239 (1996) (indefinite or prospective benefits not enough)
Appeal of Town of Wolfeboro, 152 NH 461 (2005) (theoretical future use insufficient for exemption)
Society of Cincinnati v. Exeter, 92 NH 348 (1943) (charity requires public-benefit orientation)
Kiwanis Club of Hudson, 140 NH 92 (1995) (appeal standard; factual findings presumptively valid)
Nature Conservancy v. Nelson, 107 NH 316 (1966) (occupation and use must be substantial, not slight)