Jaswant Sawhney Irrevocable Trust, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 236 A.3d 401

Jaswant Sawhney Irrevocable Trust (a D.C. nonprofit) purchased the Sikh Gurdwara at 3801 Massachusetts Ave. NW (the only gurdwara in D.C.) in May 2013; the property had been tax-exempt under the prior owner.
The D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue (OTR) denied the Trust’s exemption request, reasoning § 47-1002(13) requires a building be owned and used by a single congregation and the Trust is a charitable (not religious) entity.
Sawhney Trust petitioned the Superior Court; the Superior Court dismissed for failure to state a claim, relying on precedents requiring concurrence of ownership and use.
On appeal, the D.C. Court of Appeals treated the Superior Court dismissal de novo, declined to include the un-filed OTR exemption application in the Superior Court record, and evaluated whether the petition plausibly alleged facts entitling the Trust to exemption.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded: it held (1) precedent requires concurrence of ownership and use for § 47-1002(13) claims, but (2) Sawhney Trust’s petition plausibly alleged concurrent ownership and use (it alleged it owns and operates the gurdwara as its auxiliary and provides religious services).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 47-1002(13) require concurrence of ownership and use?	§47-1002(13) focuses on building use; owner identity irrelevant.	Precedent requires owner and user to concur; thus concurrence is prerequisite.	Concurrence of ownership and use is required (binding precedent controls).
Did Sawhney Trust plausibly plead concurrent ownership and use?	Alleged it owns and "operates Sikh Gurdwara" as its auxiliary, providing religious services to the Sikh community.	The Trust is a separate charitable entity and the prior owner still operates the temple.	Petition sufficiently alleged facts to plausibly show concurrent ownership and use; dismissal was improper.
Must the owner be a "religious organization" (vs. charitable nonprofit) to qualify?	Owner need only participate in and operate the religious elements; statutory focus is property use, not corporate form.	The Trust is a charitable nonprofit, not a religious organization, so ineligible.	No independent textual requirement that the owner be labeled a "religious organization" beyond owning/operating the church.
Is the OTR exemption application part of the Superior Court/appeal record?	(Trust relied on application before OTR.)	Government: application was before OTR but not filed in Superior Court, so not in that record.	The un-filed application is not part of the Superior Court record and is not considered on appeal.

Trustees of St. Paul Methodist Episcopal Church South v. District of Columbia, 212 F.2d 244 (D.C. Cir. 1954) (holds concurrence of ownership and use is essential for church exemption)
Bethel Pentecostal Tabernacle, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 106 A.2d 143 (D.C. 1954) (reaffirms concurrence requirement; distinguishes preparatory/temporary uses)
Catholic Home for Aged Ladies v. District of Columbia, 161 F.2d 901 (D.C. Cir. 1947) (allows auxiliary-operated charitable properties to qualify under charitable exemption; court will ‘‘look through the shadow to the substance’')
Washington Ethical Soc’y v. District of Columbia, 249 F.2d 127 (D.C. Cir. 1957) (directs broad, ordinary-usage construction of "religion/religious")
Square 345 Assocs. v. District of Columbia, 721 A.2d 963 (D.C. 1998) (Superior Court review of tax-exemption denials is de novo; petitioner bears burden to present evidence)