Appeal of Liberty Assembly of God
163 N.H. 622
| N.H. | 2012Background
- Liberty Assembly of God (NH) appeals BTLA’s upholding of Concord’s 2008 religious use tax exemption decision.
- Property: 26.13 acres in Concord; developed portion includes main building, barn, parsonage, and garage; about 20 acres in current use for agricultural/forestry; a prayer trail exists around undeveloped land.
- Tax history: City previously granted exemptions for all property since 1994; in 2008 exemption was limited to 40% with 60% taxed; City later revised to 60% exempt/40% taxable.
- Assessment: City allocated exemptions/taxability by parts of the main building and land; first-floor area (13,988 sq ft) mostly exempt, except 1,472 sq ft (apartment and a room) taxed; second floor (6,916 sq ft) taxed for several non-religious uses; BTLA upheld the 2008 apportionment.
- Issue framed: whether RSA 72:23, III fully exempts houses of worship; whether apportionment is permissible; whether room-by-room analysis violates constitutional limits; and whether all space serving religious purposes should be exempt.
- Procedural posture: NH Supreme Court reviews BTLA findings deferentially on facts and de novo on statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RSA 72:23, III fully exempt houses of worship from taxation? | RSA 72:23, III should be read to exempt five categories unmodified. | Clause modifies all enumerated properties; last antecedent rule would limit modification to last item. | Statute ambiguous; court adopts interpretation requiring exemption only for property that is owned, used and occupied directly for religious purposes; apportionment allowed. |
| Is apportionment between exempt and taxable space constitutional? | Apportionment intrudes on religious activity and violates Establishment/Equal Protection. | Apportionment aligns with statutory scheme and precedent; not unconstitutional. | Apportionment permitted; the BTLA did not impermissibly entangle government with religion. |
| Were certain spaces (e.g., grandson apartment, caretaker housing, second-floor bathroom) exempt as religious uses? | All spaces used for religious purposes; should be exempt. | Some spaces were not used for religious purposes to a substantial degree. | BTLA findings that these spaces were not owned, used and occupied directly for religious purposes up to the required substantial degree were not error; some spaces taxable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alton Bay Camp Meeting Association v. Town of Alton, 109 N.H. 44 (1968) (statutory interpretation of RSA 72:23, III and lands appertaining to exempt buildings)
- St. Paul's Church v. Concord, 75 N.H. 420 (1910) (house of public worship exemptions require analysis of religious vs. secular uses)
- Emissaries of Divine Light v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, 140 N.H. 552 (1995) (apportionment within religious exemptions; not unconstitutional when religion validity is not questioned)
- Trustees Exeter Academy v. Exeter, 90 N.H. 472 (1939) (proportional division of exempt vs. taxable building space)
- Appeal of City of Concord, 161 N.H. 344 (2011) (apportionment precedent in religious exemption context)
- E. Coast Conference of the Evangelical Covenant Church of America v. Town of Swanzey, 146 N.H. 658 (2001) (statutory construction in exemption contexts)