Bridgewater State University Foundation v. Board of Assessors of Bridgewater
463 Mass. 154
Mass.2012Background
- Bridgewater State University Foundation is a public charitable trust organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of Bridgewater State University under G. L. c. 15A, § 37.
- The Foundation owns six properties in Bridgewater: three buildings and three undeveloped parcels, none of which is exclusively occupied by the Foundation.
- University uses the properties in part (alumni office, political science department, receptions) and for student recreation; foundation permits university to occupy free of charge.
- Tax assessments for FY 2007 and FY 2008; Foundation sought exemption under G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third; the Board exempted, Appellate Tax Board reversed party, appeal to Supreme Judicial Court.
- Issue centers on whether 'owned … and occupied by' a charitable organization includes occupancy by an affiliated public university in furtherance of the charitable purpose.
- Foundation’s agreement certifies operation exclusively for the university’s benefit and consistency with the university’s goals and policies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'occupied by' require direct occupancy by the charity? | Foundation: occupancy by the university in furtherance of the charitable purpose fits. | Assessors: occupancy must be by the charitable organization itself. | Exemption applies; occupancy by the university can count when aligned with foundation’s purpose. |
| Should literal wording be tempered to avoid absurd results? | Literal reading would hinder charitable purpose; broader interpretation favored. | Literal statutory language should control unless absurd. | Court harmonizes literal meaning with legislative intent to avoid absurd results. |
| Are the six properties 'owned by' the foundation and 'occupied' in furtherance of its charitable purpose? | Properties owned by foundation used to benefit the university’s mission; qualifies. | Unclear occupancy by another entity may defeat exemption. | Yes; properties qualify when occupancy by the university furthers the foundation’s charitable purpose. |
Key Cases Cited
- Assessors of Hamilton v. Iron Rail Fund of Girls Clubs of Am., Inc., 367 Mass. 301 (Mass. 1975) (interprets 'occupied' in charitable exemption context)
- M.I.T. Student House Inc. v. Assessors of Boston, 350 Mass. 539 (Mass. 1966) (occupancy by charitable entity’s use evaluated)
- Franklin Sq. House v. Boston, 188 Mass. 409 (Mass. 1905) (occupancy by charity evaluated in exemption context)
- Charlesbank Homes v. Boston, 218 Mass. 14 (Mass. 1914) (limits on occupancy by charity in exemption analysis)
- Mary Ann Morse Healthcare Corp. v. Assessors of Framingham, 74 Mass. App. Ct. 701 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) (rejects overly strict reading of third-party occupancy)
- Attorney Gen. v. School Comm. of Essex, 387 Mass. 326 (Mass. 1982) (statutory interpretation prioritizes legislative intent)