New England Forestry Foundation, Inc. v. Board of Assessors, 468 Mass. 138

NEFF, a Massachusetts nonprofit (501(c)(3) status), owns a 120-acre Hawley forest parcel; NEFF applied for Clause Third charitable tax exemption in 2009; Hawley assessors denied, board denied after adjudicatory hearing; NEFF and assessors sought direct appellate review, result reversed in NEFF’s favor; NEFF maintains forest management and demonstration/educational activities; c. 61 forest land classification previously reduced taxes for undeveloped forest land and may overlap with Clause Third; the Trustees of Reservations’ enabling act was discussed as a potential preclusion argument; the court concluded Clause Third exemption applies if NEFF is a bona fide charitable organization and occupies the land to further charitable purposes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether NEFF qualifies as a charitable organization.	NEFF’s activities benefit the public and lessen government burdens.	Charitable status is not enough if use or openness does not align with Clause Third.	NEFF qualifies as a charitable organization.
Whether NEFF occupies Hawley forest for its charitable purposes.	NEFF occupies land through sustainable forestry, conservation, and educational activities.	Public access and use by the general public were insufficient to show occupancy.	NEFF occupancy satisfied Clause Third despite limited public access.
Whether c. 61 forest-land classification precludes Clause Third exemption.	c.61 and Clause Third serve distinct goals and may both apply.	c.61 implies only reduced taxation, not full exemption, thus precludes Clause Third.	c.61 does not preclude Clause Third exemption.
Whether Trustees of Reservations precedent limits conservation orgs from Clause Third.	Historically, not exclusive; other conservation groups may qualify.	Trustees’ exemption suggests possible exclusivity.	Trustees act does not preclude NEFF from Clause Third exemption.

Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen 539 (Mass. 1867) (charity defined by public benefit and indefinite beneficiaries)
Harvard Community Health Plan, Inc. v. Assessors of Cambridge, 384 Mass. 536 (1981) (charity requires actual public-oriented operation)
Assessors of Boston v. Vincent Club, 351 Mass. 10 (Mass. 1966) (occupancy must contribute to charity’s purposes; active appropriation required)
New Habitat, Inc. v. Tax Collector of Cambridge, 451 Mass. 729 (Mass. 2008) (public access not strictly required; open-space benefits may suffice)
Milton v. Ladd, 348 Mass. 762 (Mass. 1965) (trustees enabling act may broaden exemption but not mandate open access)