Grace Community Church Assemblies of God v. Department of Revenue
950 N.E.2d 1151
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Grace Community Church sought a 2007 religious exemption for ~7 acres in Springfield after a reassessment from agricultural to commercial increased taxes from $60 to >$15,000.
- Board of review initially recommended exemption; Department of Revenue and Director denied it after investigation and hearing.
- Administrative law judge recommended denial; Department adopted that recommendation; circuit court reversed granting exemption.
- Department appealed arguing insufficient evidence and lack of primary religious use.
- Court held plaintiff’s 2007 use and development of land supported exemption; affirmed circuit court’s reversal and exemption was allowed for 2007.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff entitled to exemption for 2007 | Land used primarily for religious purposes or in development toward exempt use | Evidence insufficient; land not used exclusively for religious purposes in 2007 | Yes; exemption affirmed for 2007 |
| What standard applies to review of the Department decision | De novo review on law; defer to agency on fact where appropriate | Standard deference to agency findings; clear error review | Review de novo for questions of law; mixed questions reviewed for clear error |
| Does 'exclusively' mean 'primarily' and can development qualify | Exclusively means primarily; development/adaptation can qualify | Exemption requires actual use, not mere development | Exemption allowed where use is primarily religious or development/adaptation toward exempt use |
| Did 2007 development activities satisfy actual-use/adaptation test | 2007 meetings and building plans show development toward exempt use | Limited documentary evidence; development not proven | Yes; 2007 development activities sufficient under totality of circumstances |
| Impact of ancillary non-church use (Sojourn) on exemption | Sojourn use ancillary and subordinate to church use | Any non-church use could defeat exemption | Sojourn use did not defeat exemption; church use remained primary |
Key Cases Cited
- Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue, 236 Ill.2d 368 (Ill. 2010) (strict construction of exemptions; clear-and-convincing evidence standard)
- Weslin Properties, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 157 Ill.App.3d 580 (Ill. App. 2nd Dist. 1987) (development/adaptation for exempt use can qualify exemption)
- Antioch Missionary Baptist Church v. Rosewell, 119 Ill.App.3d 981 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1983) (actual use required; mere intention insufficient)
- County Collector v. In re Application, 48 Ill.App.3d 572 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. 1977) (development-time allowance for exempt use)
- American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Illinois State Labor Relations Board, 216 Ill.2d 569 (Ill. 2005) (standard for reviewing mixed questions of law and fact)
- Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill.2d 200 (Ill. 2008) (clear-deference standard for agency findings; mix of fact and law)