Camp Hachshara Moshava of New York v. Wayne County Board for Assessment & Revision of Taxes
47 A.3d 1271
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Camp Moshava seeks real estate tax exemption for its Wayne County parcels, arguing it is an institution of purely public charity under HUP and Act 55.
- Court denied exemption for six parcels but exempted two parcels used for prayer/religious teaching; trial court affirmed Board’s denial for the others.
- Camp Moshava is a 501(e)(3) nonprofit operating Orthodox Jewish summer camp with religious/educational mission, youth programing, and staff; activities tied to religion/education.
- Camp Moshava provides special needs programs and aids local volunteer ambulance/firefighting efforts, but these activities are not shown to relieve government burden as required by HUP and Act 55.
- Trial court held it did not relieve the government of a burden and thus failed HUP; Board’s similar exemptions to other entities do not establish uniform exemption; presumption under Act 55 does not apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Camp Moshava qualifies as a purely public charity under HUP | Moshava shows charitable work and public benefits | Not proven to relieve government burden; primary camp purpose unrelated to public charity | No; fails HUP burden (element d) and thus cannot qualify |
| whether Camp Moshava relieves government burden under Act 55 | Special needs program and ambulance/firefighting assistance relieve burden | No evidence that services relieve government burden or are mandated by law | No; burden not shown (element d under Act 55) |
| Whether presumption under Act 55 applies given sales-tax exemption status | DOR exemption creates rebuttable presumption | Presumption unavailable absent HUP compliance | Presumption not applicable because HUP not met |
| Whether Board/trial court applied charitable exemption standards uniformly (uniformity clause) | Board misapplied standards or treated comparables inconsistently | No demonstrated widespread discrimination; mere error in assessment not enough | No uniformity violation proven; decision affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 507 Pa. 1 (Pa. 1985) (defines HUP five-part test for purely public charity)
- Associated YM-YWHA of Greater New York/Camp Poyntelle v. County of Wayne, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 349, 613 A.2d 125 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992) (rejected claiming burden relief from camp activities)
- Mars Area School District v. United Presbyterian Women’s Association of North America, 554 Pa. 324, 721 A.2d 360 (Pa. 1998) (upholds relief of government burden when institution bears substantial costs)
- Mesivtah Eitz Chaim II, 44 A.3d 3 (Pa. 2012) (confirms HUP minimum and Act 55 interaction; cannot reach Act 55 without HUP)
- Unionville-Chadds Ford School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment and Appeals, 552 Pa. 212, 714 A.2d 397 (Pa. 1998) (discusses public garden relief to government burden; relevance to public charity analysis)