Christian Fellowship & Renewal Center v. Town of Limington

es where one must conform his conduct to ” regulation.’ Kelby, a civil 360 A.2d at Co., (quoting Shapiro Bros. Shoe Inc.

v. Lewiston-Auburn Shoeworkers Protec- (Me.1974)) Ass’n,

tive

(alteration original). Here, explicit- the statute does not

ly prohibit diagnosing Cobb from

treating, and other sections of the statute

and the implicitly Board’s rules and forms Thus,

authorize her to do so. the statute vague given because Cobb was not

opportunity to prohibited know what was adjust

and to her conduct or status accord-

ingly. Therefore, process rights her due

were violated prosecuted when she was

practicing beyond scope of her license. reasons, forgoing For the I would

vacate.

2006 ME 44

CHRISTIAN AND FELLOWSHIP

RENEWAL CENTER

v.

TOWN OF LIMINGTON et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: April 2005.

Reargued: Jan. April

Decided: it for property qualify pursuant taxation to 36 M.R.S. (C) (2005). 652(1)(A), Because errors analysis Commissioners’ because, governing law and as mat- primary jurisdiction, County

ter of the opportuni- Commissioners should have the ty joint stipulations to consider presented appeal in the first instance on to the Supe- Court, rior we vacate and remand. I. CASE HISTORY approximately ninety [¶2] CFRC owns Stephen Whiting, (orally), C. Esq. The acres of land in Limington.1 The land was Firm, P.A., Whiting Portland, Law for acquired in the late 1980s. has CFRC plaintiff. operating been since approximately 1992. imposed For the Town real estate McGlauflin, Bruce A. Esq. (orally), Pe- property. taxes on CFRC’s $2783.26 truecelli, Martin & Haddow, LLP, Port- applied for an abate- land, for defendant. taxes, ment of these contending that the SAUFLEY, C.J., Panel: and property qualified a benevolent and CLIFFORD, DANA, ALEXANDER, exemption pursuant to 36 CALKINS, LEVY, SILVER, and JJ.* 652(1)(A). M.R.S. The Town found that CFRC, organization, as an qualified for the CLIFFORD, Majority: DANA, exemption, approved exemption re- ALEXANDER, SILVER, JJ. quest, granted an abatement SAUFLEY, C.J., CALKINS, Dissent: principal CFRC’s meeting center LEVY, JJ. surrounding three acres of land. Howev- er, exemption the Town denied the request SAUFLEY, Dissent: C.J. and abatement the remainder farmhouse, property, including ALEXANDER, J. house, approximately caretaker’s Fellowship Christian and Re- eighty-eight acres of land that was used (CFRC) newal Center appeals from the recreational connected to ac- (York judgment of Superior Court meeting tivities at the center. J.) Fritzsche, County, affirming a decision County the York appealed Commissioners that Town’s deci- petition denied CFRC’s for a property County sion to the York Commissioners (2005). exemption imposed and abatement of pursuant taxes to 36 M.R.S. upon Limington. most of its County Commissioners denied CFRC’s CFRC asserts that it is a request. Upon benevolent and and abatement organization appeal pursuant and that its uses of CFRC’s to M.R. Civ. P. * Justice Paul L. Rudman sat at the first oral differing 1. The record contains statements re- argument participated of this case and in ini- garding the amount of land owned CFRC. case, tial conferences about the but retired significant Those differences are not for reso- prior publication opinion. lution of the issues in this case. J.) (Brennan,.

80B, that the uses of Superior Court demonstrate provide significant public at issue County deci- benefit affirmed Commissioners’ us, government service that would other- appeal sion. we va- or Upon CFRC’s negating re- provide, wise “therefore cated and remanded for further fact-find- pro Fellowship quirement quid quo.” Renewal ings. & Christian Limington, v. Ctr. Town of agreement on the Relying consent 769 A.2d 834. County that substituted for the Commis- stipulations remand, hearing was and the new a further sioners’ decision [¶ 4] On fact, Superior affirmed before the Commis- of Court conducted request. sioners, denial of correctly opinion, again affirming issued decision such as organization stated that a exemption Town’s denial for a request. appeal qualify an initial CFRC can abatement On decision, if it Superior exemption for its of that the Court (Brennan J.) for “organized exclusively for fact- and conducted remanded further purposes.” The to resolve a number of issues benevolent and charitable findings parties needing as clarifi- raised both court further observed: then County cation. The Commissioners an organization performs If a religious and, hearing in Janu- conducted further charity act of which also meets a need the ary issued another decision with government programs services which same result. address, exemption then an warrant- If religious organization ed. the instead appeal Superior the the

[¶ 5] On third govern- which meets a need Court, prob- parties the identified several meet, ment cannot and should not then Jan- County lems the Commissioners’ is not exemption warranted. uary the approval 2004 decision. With Court, Superior parties the the entered disquali- appears This statement [¶ 8] (1) that into consent order determined activities fy religious related charitable in the findings that a number the receiving exemption, from because not decision were County Commissioners’ ac- government engage cannot (2) findings that findings; indicated other statement, the Superior tivities. this With (3) findings findings; clarified some were County Court affirmed Commissioners’ (4) conclusions; most significantly, provided CFRC conclusion because separate stipulation the facts added a retreat, recreation, activities and renewal that are undis- “identifying certain facts religiously-affiliated groups, primarily for record.” puted and based gov- provide did not a service CFRC and ac- might provide otherwise ernment result, stipulated it has been [¶ As cordingly not benevo- did de- request was CFRC’s lent nied because appeal. brought then this (1) purposes, that: CFRC’s

concluded religious purposes, included which use II. THE AGREED STIPULATIONS prerequisite did meet a stip facts conclusions pur- solely exempt use “requiring (2) Superior parties ulated uses of its real estate poses”; CFRC’s for the Court’s benevo- form “solely for charitable and basis were not (3) matter.2 The Town’s brief ruling failed to this lent purposes”; record,” 80B(e) stipulations par- as permit Civ. ties "submit 2. While M.R. P. does recognizes us stipulation “suc that government service would other- cinctly summarizes those supporting provide. facts wise [djecision that are most relevant 8.CFRC failed to demonstrate that its this appeal.” Although fact-findings are organization and the uses of its real normally reviewed deferentially, we review “solely estate was for charitable and be- de novo for parties errors of law when the purposes.” nevolent stipulate or do not dispute the factual find recounting history After ¶ Devlin, ings. 10, 14, Trask v. acquisition property, of the 179, 182. abatement, taxation and applications for findings and conclusions of stipulations adopted by CFRC and the the York Commissioners that the Town stated as follows: parties agree should be considered on this According to both its Articles of In- appeal indicated that: corporation By-laws, pur- exempt CFRC was tax- income poses are limited to providing religious, ation “as a non-profit corporation en- educational services and/or gaged in ministry.” 501(c)(3) within meaning 2. The “raw land” of the property was Internal Revenue Code of the United “used for by affiliated retreat/renewal exempt States.3 CFRC was from feder- religious organizations.” al income taxation under Title 26 U.S.C. 3. charged CFRC a “nominal rate” for 501(c)(3) and had since been facility. use of the March of 1989. 4. The persons using the caretaker’s 6. specifically, More in 1996 CFRC’s cottage are responsible security purpose and reason for existence was to maintenance of property, prep- meal fundamentalist, help bible-believing aration groups using property, churches and physically individuals both and collection and distribution of donat- spiritually, including but not limited ed foods. pastors to and church It members. did 5. provides While CFRC public bene- First, ways. this in two it existed to by fit distributing food to needy, provide needy food to families north- property at issue is not used for this County. ern York In 1996 it distributed purpose, negating “therefore the re- needy food to families which CFRC esti- quirement quid pro quo.” (retail $300,000.00 mated was worth val- 6. purposes, including service ue). second, And in 1996 CFRC existed for religious activities did not meet the churches, provide support to to church prerequisite for exemption “requiring groups, religious organizations, pastors, solely use for exempt purposes.” by making and church members its real 7. CFRC failed to demonstrate that it estate and facilities available to them for provides a significant public benefit or a low rates. process replace replacement should not be used to of the fact-finder’s decision with liking parties, administrative decisions or add to the record one more to the without considered, appeal on facts not the fact-finder’s consent. See Beane v. Me. Ins. in the first Assn, 9-12, ¶¶ instance, by Guar. agency. administrative Cor- stipulation 286-87. provisions

rection or of the record permit in the rules are not intended to addi- materials, 501(c)(3) (West the record of new facts Supp.2005). or 3. 26 U.S.C.A. grounds. During all the win- 7. its around the In 1996 CFRC advertised would ice groups ter months the skate real and facilities were available estate fundamental, country pond, on the and cross ski and evangelistic, to: ... “all grounds. In throughout Bible-believing churches and individuals snowmobile of land 88 acres were activities.” CFRC for Christian-related allowing purpose, by used for no other other than consider other Judeo- would groups. to use its facilities as these groups Christian well, have used facilities. but none In 13. 1996 CFRC allowed minister In 1996 CFRC used main center his live in the family farmhouse building only connection with its two addition, In the farm- charge. free brought It food a room in purposes. lodging house for over flow was used stores, grocery re- building enough not beds in the when there were food, packaged the and then distributed lodge an building main center entire it It also needy families. rented group. farmhouse was used for no churches, building to numerous church other in 1996. organizations, pas- groups, religious 14. In caretaker’s house was 1996 the tors. ... the caretakers inhabited charged groups In CFRC kept eye CFRC. [The caretakers] night’s per person per lodging, $6.00 keep facilities to them property and day. for three per person meals $10.00 addition, from being vandalized. pay If not individuals could afford they charge maintaining were rates, let these those individuals property, cooking cleaning charged for free. The fees come [They] groups that used the center. did ... expenses did not cover its pay any not rent to live caretak- rely which that CFRC had to meant house, paid er’s com- and were upon donations charitable to meet pensation serving as the caretakers. expenses. remainder of its by-laws, 15. According the CFRC’s gross 10. revenues in 1996 to as “Di- directors are referred $13,020.47 $28,191.50 ... of which were Ministry” rectors must be donations; charitable came from Christians. $14,726.90 renting came of which from using 16. the Center’s fa- group Each churches, its facilities church-related pro- cilities for its own “responsible organizations, pas- groups, religious apart from and activities gram, schedule tors; remaining and the $444.13 housing.” meals and with sources connected miscellaneous Cen- 17. the activities Some of to those rental of its facilities in- ter facilities available for makes its groups. churches and conferences, conventions, clude: semi- had ex- business 1996 CFRC anniversaries, reunions, nars, family totaling penses deductions vacations, showers, family baby $32,587.57 meaning that a net ... it had bridal showers. $4,396.07. year of loss groups used CFRC’s 12. Some CHARITABLE III. OUR building also the rest main center used JURISPRUDENCE EXEMPTION months, of In the warmer its land. a benevolent and beach, qualify for play use the To groups these would exemption, ap- field, camp ball on the ball hike

293 life, plicant exemption must by demonstrate themselves in or ... otherwise ” First, that two criteria are prop- met. lessening government.’ of burdens erty must occupied Johnson, 287). be “owned and or used (quoting Id. 221 A.2d at solely purposes by for their own benevo- The reference to “an indefi lent and charitable institutions.” persons” nite number of is not mandate 652(1)(A). Second, § M.R.S. the institu- activity open public that the be claiming exemption “must be or- large. exemption The charitable statute ganized exclusively and conducted for be- “right exemption” may states that the of purposes.” nevolent and charitable “by not be denied reason of limitation in 652(1)(C)(1)(2005). M.R.S. persons the classes of for whose benefit In reviewing benevolent and such applied.” funds are 36 M.R.S. issues, the word 652(1)(A). “be Thus, an exemption may be nevolent” is synonymous construed as organization available to an that limits its the word “charitable.” Me. AFL-CIO persons benefits to a class of defined Madawaska, Corp. Hous. Dev. v. Town A religious affiliation. affiliation (Me.1987). 523 A.2d Accordingly, purpose organization of an analysis, “does not contradict its benevolent and issue will be referred to as the “charitable” purpose,” if its activities would exemp otherwise for the charitable Army tion. Salvation v. Town Stand [¶ 14] We addressed the meaning of ¶ ish, 75, 5, 709 A.2d “charity” “charitable” or in Episcopal Foundation, Camp Inc. v. Hope, Town of In reviewing whether a par (Me.1995). There, A.2d quot- organization qualifies ticular for a charita ing Johnson v. South Blue Hill Cemetery exemption, ble we have indicated that the Ass’n, (Me.1966), we first organ issue to resolve whether the activity, charitable, that an to be purpose ization’s stated is charitable with should be meaning creating of the statute for the benefit of an indefinite number exemption. Cushing Nature & Pres. Ctr. persons, either bringing their ¶ 149, 10, v. Town Cushing, 2001 ME minds or hearts under the influence of organiza 345. Where an education or religion, by relieving their tion’s stated deemed be disease, bodies from suffering, or con- charitable, analysis proceeds our to an ex straint, by assisting them to establish amination of the facts related to the or life, by themselves in or erecting or ganization’s activities to if determine those maintaining public buildings or works or activities as in charitable nature. lessening otherwise gov- the burdens of ¶ 10, See id. 785 A.2d at 346. ernment. Episcopal Camp, 666 In A.2d at 110. This Town Poland v. Poland Institute, Inc., language, sounding Spring while somewhat Health stilted 649 A.2d today, 1098, (Me.1994), indicates a religiously-affiliated 1100 we characterized an activity may qualify as opinion, charitable when it earlier Green Acre Baha‘i Insti “ Eliot, 350, benefits ‘an indefinite persons number of tute v. Town 150 Me. 110 ... by bringing (1954), their minds or un- hearts A.2d 581 as “the seminal case for der the influence of ... religion, by findings reliev- the determination of factual re ing disease, their bodies from suffering, quired or to a support decision of entitlement constraint, by assisting them to property exemption.” establish to a In Green

Acre, for programs we outlined the to be ad- center center for en- questions and/or ¶ 2, quali- for a organization’s dressed vironmental education.” 2001 ME as property fication the charitable 785 A.2d at 343-44. The in- follows: property volved was 400 acres coastal a previously by corporation owned

In each situation where sought tax-exempt had and been denied claimed, there must be a careful exami- ¶¶ 2-3, 785 at status. Id. A.2d 344. nation to determine in fact the whether supported application its as- organized conducting applicant by institution is serting that edu- operation purely benevolent and “several” nature-related faith, programs in cational occurred on the purposes good proper- wheth- ¶ 5, any profit ty er there is motive or Id. at revealed A.2d concealed, total pretense by whether there is 344. The of uses asserted taxation, to any pro- Cushing avoid whether Nature & Preservation Center purely support ap- duction of to of its minimal: application revenue incidental was twenty-five days a dominant proximately which children’s two-year period, these a a questions groups camping and charitable. When over walks, favorably to the petitioner property are answered few nature use of for exemption, may hospital study relating not be a property issues ¶¶ 5-6, Lyme taxed. Disease. Id. 344-45. We held these facts were Among

150 Me. at 110 A.2d at 584. enough entitling create factual dispute Acre, properties exempt ruled Green to a the Center trial determine if these undeveloped were “two woodland areas” qualified minimal uses its 400 acres for walks, prayer, that were “for medita- used if, exemption or as tion, meetings outdoor and recreation.” asserted, really the land was held for non- only Id. The was used in- charitable investment summer. Me. at 110 A.2d at 583. corporation. dividuals who controlled the applied We artic have criteria ¶¶ 16-19, Id. A.2d to approve ulated in Green Acre Army, In Salvation we held that exemptions Spring Poland Insti Health tute, religious organization operated a sum- AFL- 649 A.2d at and Maine camp, mer allowed its officers and Housing Development Corp., CIO fee, families, their for a nominal to use the opinions apply at 584-85. three recent camp being as a criteria, facilities when used ing organizations allowing those camp, qualify for a summer could benevo- use of at reduced rates for recre ME ation, retreat, activities, lent and charitable in and renewal ¶¶ 2, 5, 709 A.2d at 728-29. We deter- organizations affili cluding Army offi- allowing mined that Salvation ation, qualify, have been deemed personal recre- cers use facilities potentially qualify, for the charitable ex use” lodging ation and was an “incidental emption. Cushing See Nature Pres. & compromise not the overall chari- Ctr., 342; did Salva ¶¶ 6-7, the 727; property. table Id. uses Army, ME A.2d A.2d at 729. Episcopal 666 A.2d 108. Camp, a Episcopal Camp, nonprofit Cushing Nature & Preservation summer a request by corporation operated camp an exemption Center involved moral, own, “carry on corporate to non-profit corporation organized purpose “to cultural, training religious and recreational operate preserve and land as a nature education, in instruction arts in Title & and Contained Sections 652 (Feb.1979). lore, good citizenship, crafts and nature 14-15 living responsibility, social and civic activity a charitable [¶ 24] Whether in cooperate community enterpris- welfare displaces government offsets or service es.” A.2d at 108. camp’s weekly The consider, along is one factor to with other patterned schedule was the for after Order evidence, in for a reviewing qualification Celebrating Holy the at Eucharist. Id. exemption, Camp, charitable see Episcopal tuition, 109. In addition to the camp oper- Johnson, (quoting 666 A.2d at 110 ating costs for camp supported the were 287) (“ lessening ‘or A.2d otherwise the by charitable gen- donations “and income government’”), “quid but burdens leasing property erated in the off- pro quo” factor alone does not control Id. income-generating season.” This activ- qualification disqualification or ity on the in the off-season was charitable not compromising viewed as the benevo- lent camp and charitable IV. APPLICATION OF THE “solely or the for their own purposes” limi- TO LAW THIS CASE 652(1)(A). in section tation Id. at 109-11. Limington’s agreed [¶ 25] None opinions of these indicated stipulations arguments their exemption a charitable could be de- Superior and to us indicate that the nied because the recreational activities seriously Town does not contest supported by preservation or CFRC satisfies most of the above criteria. organizations provide did not or service exemption of the Review charitable criteria quid benefit —a pro quo offset a gov- —to our have precedents established over the ernment service or benefit. past half century indicate that the denial of exemption the charitable result- exemption was cre- analy- ed errors from several of law the ated in age government provided when sis of issue Commission-

few services and institutions and ers and the Let look Court. us provided many charities that gov- services agreed at the facts of this case in relation ernment provided neither nor subsidized. to our charitable exemption jurisprudence. Baptist See Me. Missionary v. Convention Portland, (1876). City 65 Me. 93-94 Organizational Qualification A. now, Then organizations need not dis- place government programs in order Organizational qualification good serve the common dependent a charitable exemption by providing (1) fact-finding demonstrating that: groups charitable services defined organization’s is charitable public large. legislative study One (2) law; meaning within the original indicated purposes of the using in fact organization organized promote were to good faith its stated only providing govern- (3) services in lieu of avoid purpose; pretense there no services, (4) ment also “providing taxation; but a ser- profit there is no motive (5) genuine vice which the state has a in- organization’s activity; “any Report Standing terest.” of the Joint production purely of revenue is incidental Statutory Committee Taxation on the which is benevolent purpose a dominant Health Property Exemptions Spring Review of the Tax and charitable.” Poland Inst., 1100; Acre, Activity Qualification 649 A.2d at B. Green 354, 110 A.2d at 584. Me. Turning activity to the criteria we [¶ 30] seriously The Town cannot established, have held have we dispute organizational qualifica CFRC’s CFRC, organization like with stated reli for The record estab exemption. gious purposes, qualifies and charitable for lishes that CFRC received Army, Salvation 1998 ME exemption, a organiza charitable for which ¶ 5, 729, and that limiting 709 A.2d at qualification prerequisite. Fur tional is persons groups benefits to reli ther, endeavors, engages in CFRC some does, affiliation, gious as CFRC will not distribution, like food that the Town does id.; preclude qualification exemption, dispute are not “charitable.” 652(1)(A). We have also held 36 M.R.S. qualify as do that activities that joint stipulation, to the According not their nature if lose conduct providing are “purposes CFRC’s limited a religious purpose. ed serve Salvation educational religious, charitable and/or ¶75, 729; 501(c)(3) Army, ME meaning services within the 108-09; stip Episcopal Camp, 666 A.2d at of the Internal Revenue Code.” These Acre, 353-54, 110 purposes organiza ulated similar to 150 Me. at A.2d at are Green purposes qualify tional that we have stated 583-84.

for the benevolent or charitable Addressing intensity opinions Epis in the discussed above. See use, have held that recreation and re we Notably, copal Camp, at 108. very ac laxation activities—even minimal specifically are purposes more may qualify as charitable activi “preserve than land” tivities— supporting exemption. ties a charitable sup purposes “environmental education” Ctr., Cushing Nature & Pres. porting exemption application Cush ¶¶ 5-6, 16-19, A.2d at 344-47. Center, Nature & ing Preservation exemption qualification purposes, ¶ For 149, 2, ME A.2d at 343-44. The use, intensity, fact of a charitable not its Commissioners did have qualifies exemption. what for the Green joint stipulation in reaching benefit of the Acre, A 150 Me. at 110 A.2d at 583. their decision. may property charitable use points, appears On the there other if has little exemption, even dispute organized no CFRC is use or relaxation. human for recreation using good faith for its Ctr., 2001 ME Cushing Nature & Pres. purpose; finding there no ¶ 149, 15, 785 A.2d at 346-47. taxation; pretense to there is no avoid profit activity, it is los- motive CFRC’s intensity of Even if some ing money operations; on its and what prerequisite use is a charitable ex generated purely incidental revenue is emption, has sufficient presented a dominant that is Thus, in this of such uses case. evidence Thus, meets all the and charitable. joint 12 states: stipulation we have organizational criteria established main exemption. groups Some that used CFRC’s support a charitable also used the rest of its building center clarification months, these the wanner may important be land. agreed stipulation beach, play use the ball on reviewing organ- groups would field, all camp and hike and qualification izational the ball n grounds. During Finally, significant 35] around the the winter and most for [¶ case, groups on held any months would ice skate we have that offset of pond, country government and cross ski and is a be con- services factor to sidered, throughout grounds. mandatory prerequisite, snowmobile but not a determining qualification CFRC’s 88 acres of land were in for the chari- by used no other purpose, exemption. for other than id. at In the table See below, groups. these Court Superior decisions both and the Commissioners denied stipulated This year- evidence of exemption application by placing CFRC’s round of the eighty-eight by use acres on significant focus conclusions that twenty-five or so groups and churches us- activities, they are reli- because ing the property demonstrates a far use nature, gious purport- in could not fulfill a more uses intense than the deemed to “quid pro quo” requirement ed that qualify for in Cushing Nature organization provide a benefit or setoff for Center, & Preservation 2001 ME government services that the would other- ¶¶ 5-6, 344-45; Acre, 785 A.2d at or Green provide. wise 352-54, 583-84, 150 Me. at 110 A.2d at over more seasons than use “quid pro quo” analysis deemed un- qualify Episcopal Camp, for in by dertaken Acre, 666 A.2d at or Green court suggests Me. and the below flawed. It Thus, that, government there is more engage since cannot than activities, sufficient evidence record no religiously-affiliated uses of support of its chari- can govern- recreational activities offset purposes. table qualify ment services to for the charitable exemption. contrary That view is to our Continuing the discussion of the precedents approved that have activity related criteria that we have estab- for exemptions religiously-affiliated recre- lished to qualify exemp- a charitable ational As in Army, activities. Salvation tion, we have statutory indicated that the Acre, Episcopal Camp, and Green recre- “solely restriction to uses own their serving religious purpose ational uses incidental, purposes” allows non-charitable exemption. can the charitable living uses and arrangements by staff To risks suggest approving otherwise dis- others, members and without forfeiting parate religiously-affiliated treatment exemption, long as as the “domi- compared charitable activities to other nant” is for use purpose. charitable activities. ¶¶ Army, 6-7, Salvation 729; Inst., A.2d at Poland Spring Health To the “quid pro extent quo” analysis at 1099-1100. use staff the County used Commis- and volunteers at issue here is signifi- Superior suggests less sioners and the cant Spring than indicated Poland group casual limited recreational Institute, certainly Health and is incidental do replace relaxation activities or service, to and supportive governmental of CFRC’s dominant setoff that view Further, purpose. have held provide we that even is also incorrect. CFRC does re- incidental, producing, income non-charita- “government creational services uses, ble family like the occasional To provide.” events would should otherwise words, property, do not foreclose use the Court’s qualification provides “by providing for a charitable some- benefits: Episcopal Camp, thing government 666 A.2d at 109. would otherwise

298 (Me.1983); Levesque government system v. Inhabitants through the provide,” of (Me. lands, Eliot, 876, parks, and recreational 878 public of of 1084, 1982); 400 Feeney, facilities. v. A.2d Fletcher (Me.1979). 1090 deci- County The Commissioners’ [¶ 38] that reli- suggesting sion is also flawed Here, practice the better would [¶ 41] purposes or activities cannot be gious parties for the to have devel- have been “solely” quali- and charitable to presented oped stipulations their them suggesting and in fy Commissioners, County prior first to the incidental, on the non-charitable activities new evidence or to their decision. When or overseers of property by staff members developed fact stipulations of are disqualify the record to a fact- expand presented would the charitable Our receiving agency, stip- that evidence or those finding above, opinions, past discussed hold to presented ulations should first be “solely” interpretation a narrow of such They should fact-finder consideration. of incorrect as matter law. appellate to an court on presented be court with an invitation to the to review V. CONCLUSION adopt agency, that an facts or conclusions affiliation, [¶ 39] CFRC’s law, jurisdiction has by primary ac- of the recreational orientation decide. “quid property, tivities on its the so-called Accordingly, judg- we vacate the [¶ 42] incidental, doctrine, quo” and some pro ment and remand Superior members, staff by non-charitable activities with direction to remand overseers, charita- or others do not bar the request Commissioners to decide CFRC’s exemption as a matter law. The ble tax abate- Commissioners and record, property, ment on the based Be- by concluding otherwise. Court erred (if stipulations ac- including parties’ stipulated facts and undis- cause the are Commissioners), by and in- cepted If these errors are errors of law. puted, governing exemp- law formed exemption jurisprudence is our charitable request opinion our consistently applied, respected to be prior opinions. light reconsideration remand for re- stipulated facts is clarified law and entry The is: quired. for fur- Remanded Judgment vacated. County Commissioners with this ther consideration consistent fact-finding body appropriate are opinion. Pursuant

this matter. 36 M.R.S. jurisdiction doctrine, primary courts J., SAUFLEY, C.J., LEVY, whom on matters ruling, appeal, avoid should J., CALKINS, join, dissenting. decision-making committed law the respectfully I dissent. agency be authority of administrative Fellowship and Re- agency has first Christian fore the administrative (CFRC) carried the burden newal and decide Center opportunity had an review the York Coun- prove persuade to and the matter at the facts on the merits of Ass’n, it came “‘unmis- ty Me. Ins. Guar. Beane v. issue. See ¶¶ and intent’ 9-12, spirit within the takably A.2d 286- ME Smith, exemption.” Credit Coun- 87; v. A.2d 821 charitable Cushing Ctrs., Portland, seling taxation, Inc. v. City pro- S. to avoid and whether ¶2, 461; purely ME n. duction revenue incidental Found., see Episcopal also v. Camp Inc. a dominant which is benevolent (Me. 108, Town Hope, 666 A.2d and charitable. 1995). un- paints The record evidence an (1954). 354, 150 Me. however, picture, certain regarding both Organization Prong A. of 36 M.R.S. organizational ac- purpose and its 652(1)(C)(1) § tual in providing conduct its facilities real religious estate houses of We an stated worship [¶ examine institution’s 46] groups purpose evaluating other when it low rates. whether satis- such uncertainty, organization prong Faced with fies exemp- Commissioners properly Cushing concluded that tion statute. See Nature & Pres. “orga- CFRC failed to that it Ctr. Cushing, establish is v. ¶10, Here,

nized exclusively and conducted for be- 345-46. purposes” emphasizes nevolent and charitable as is Court that “CFRC’s ‘purposes required statutory under our providing religious, scheme for are limited to charita- exemption from property taxation. 36 ble educational services within the and/or 652(1)(C)(1)(2005). 501(c)(3) § M.R.S. County meaning § of the Internal Rev- ” Code,’ ultimately Commissioners’ decision should af- enue be and therefore con- firmed. organizational cludes that purpose

is charitable. I. DISCUSSION Simply asking organi- whether an zation exempt claims to be from federal explains, As the Court income taxation under 26 U.S.C.A. exemption for an as a benevolent and char- 501(c)(3) (West § Supp.2005) to determine itable pursuant institution to 36 M.R.S. it has a purpose whether stated charitable 652(1)(A) § (2005), must, an institution grossly oversimplifies the issue for two among things, other comply with the stan- 501(c)(3) First, § reasons. tax affords ex- 652(1)(C)(1) dard set forth section empt variety status for a of institutional requires that the institution ex- “claiming purposes. exemp- Unlike our tax emption ... organized be and conducted 501(c)(3) statute, § does not treat dif- exclusively for benevolent and charitable, scientific, religious, ferently purposes.” In determining whether an in- literary say To an or- institutions. organization stitution or meets both the 501(c)(3) § ganization qualifies says under organizational and requirements, conduct nothing might qualify more than that it reviewing authority must undertake recog- one of the exemptions tax thorough analysis of the facts. In Green 652(1)(2005). nized in M.R.S. Eliot, Acre Institute Baha‘i v. Town we stated that 501(c)(3) Second, only il- status exemption

[i]n each situation where an it lustrates institution’s assertion that claimed, income, there must abe careful exami- entitled not taxation; provides insight nation to determine the property, whether fact it no organized conducting institution is into the institution’s claimed charitable operation purely its and purpose. Accordingly, we must look be- faith, good yond general federal wheth- reference to the any er tax profit there is motive revealed income statute to determine concealed, whether pretense organization’s purpose. there an See exhibit, Fund, Annuity represented

Harrison Barker 90 ers as v. Cir.1937) (7th (stating that let “plan[ned] F.2d it contact churches and corporation character “[t]he them know of the activities that purpose organized it which must be conducting, [is] also let will be [it] [to] ascertained reference the terms of them know that facilities are [its] available charter”). law Our case is consistent can they for rent so that conduct their own approach with this in that we focus on religious activities [t]here.” what the stated of the institution Accordingly, does satis not is, actually its asserted status. fy organizational prong necessary example, Camp, For not- Episcopal we exemption simply for the charitable organization ed that the had a multi-facet- exempt a qualifies organi because it as tax camps ed “to purpose, which was maintain zation the Internal under Revenue Code. carry for and which will both men women Organizational purpose under section moral, cultural, religious and recre- 652(1)(C)(1) concept. a broader education, training ational and instruction is organized record establishes that CFRC lore, in good arts and crafts and nature provide physical spiritual to and assistance citizenship, and living responsi- social civic to and to its churches individuals and rent community bility, cooperate and to in wel- facilities so that others “can conduct their (inter- enterprises.” fare 666 A.2d at 108 religious own activities.” this Whether omitted). quotations Similarly, nal be should construed as “charitable” or “re Emoh Associates v. Inhabitants Camp of ligious" fairly can be debated. To Lyman, we pur- observed that main “[t]he orga purports extent that CFRC be pose design [Camp and of ... Emoh] spiritual as provide physical nized and holding acquiring that of and real [was] others, purpose its can con sistance be personal property and for the erection and charitable, strued as as seen in cases support camp, camps, of a to be con- care, involving missionary societies. Bee Green profit, ducted without for the mainte- Acre, 583; nance, 353, and A.2d poor indigent assistance of and 150 Me. 110 67, 69, A. Ferry Jewish children.” 132 Me. 166 Beach Park Ass’n the Universal of (1933). 59, Saco, 202, City ist Church v. 136 Me. of 204-05, (1939); Maine The statement in CFRC’s articles City v. Baptist Missionary Convention of incorporation purpose of that its is “limited (“It Portland, (1876) 92, 94 has 65 Me. religious, to providing charitable and/or repeatedly missionary been decided that meaning educational services within the of are, sense, legal ... in a charita societies 501(c)(3) § of the Internal Revenue Code” institutions.”). hand, to ble On the other provides insight as to whether CFRC little that it is the extent that CFRC asserts organizational of prong satisfies the sec- and organized provide physical spiritual 652(1)(C)(1). revealing A more ex- providing assistance in the form of a venue pression organizational purpose of CFRC’s activities, its for the conduct of parties’ stipulations: appears religious. See purpose can be described as reason for existence “CFRC’s and v. Assembly Bangor Maid fundamentalist, Pentecostal help bible-believing to was of (Me.1980) (not low, 893-94 physically churches and individuals both pur that ing that is well settled for “[i]t spiritually, including but not limited taxation, from Similarly, poses pastors church members.” 501(c)(3) equated are not to be religious purposes § for application status purposes.”). and charitable was submitted to the Commission- with benevolent statutory Our carried the scheme also reflects burden establish distinction between charitable reli- spirit it comes within “unmistakably gious it considers houses organizational prong intent” of religious worship societies benevolent and charitable provision under different exemption statute. The record does not than benevolent and charitable institutions. compel the conclusion 652(1)(A),(G) (2005); See 36 M.R.S. Os- deter- they Commissioners erred when Portland, teopathic Hosp. City Me. v. organized mined that CFRC is “primarily (1942) A.2d Me. ... religious purposes.” (acknowledging statutory predeces- that a sor to 652 “place[d] section benevolent and Prong B. Conduct 36 M.R.S. charitable institutions a different cate- 652(1)(C)(1) institutions”). gory purely religious being organized addition to Court’s reliance on the purpose, benevolent grant partial exemp- Town’s decision to institution it must also establish that tion for main building and the exclusively conducted surrounding three acres additional as purpose. charitable 36 M.R.S. proof organiza- that CFRC satisfies the 652(1)(C)(1). § Again, we must undertake requirement tional remaining for the build- a making careful of facts in review the ings acreage misplaced. is The law Acre, such a determination. See Green compel grant does not a town to a taxpay- 354,110 150 at at Me. A.2d 584. exemption er an all of property its if determines, Just as a stated can be reason, the town for whatever religious, only portion that a both charitable and an institu- taxpayer’s prop- erty qualifies may exemption. for the tion’s conduct be both charitable and main building surrounding and the religious. Episcopal Camp, three See acres were not of part re- (noting organization abatement at 109 that the provid- quest that County was considered religious through ed “Faith instruction a Commissioners,4 County and the Commis- Development” class also “conducted] but sioners did not a conduct de novo review of activities”). ... camp traditional summer partial granted by the Town 652(1)(C)(1) Nevertheless, section requires Therefore, to the County CFRC. Commis- that the be conducted institution exclusive- sioners, despite that CFRC’s distribution ly for “ex- purposes. Whether of needy food to the constituted a charita- clusively” strictly be construed in should ble to purpose, deny pending “voted is not plain meaning accordance with its property tax peti- abatement denial appeal Compare settled our decisions. Credit tion.” ¶ Ctrs., Inc., 12, Counseling 2003 ME A.2d at with Town Poland The record can case be of Inst., Inc., 649 Spring v. Poland Health support construed determination (Me.1994). considering organized to A.2d CFRC is serve a charitable conduct, purpose, religious purpose, or both. an institution’s we the nature of however, (Title 652(A)).” Accordingly, noteworthy, it 4. It ini- that CFRC’s M.R.S.A. exemption request represent- tial the Town possible that the viewed main personal property ed that its real estate and building surrounding as ex- three acres following purposes: were used for the "As a worship pursuant empt to 36 as a house (Title worship 652(g)) house of 36 M.R.S.A. 652(1)(G) (2005). §M.R.S. for benevolent and/or directly, it is clear from ultimate ers’ decision look to institution’s beneficia- although their decision that they illuminate the nature ries because quid pro quo as Commissioners treated scope of that institution’s decision, it factor their not the sole Centers, was Counseling conduct. See Credit too suggestion ¶ factor.5 The Court’s Inc., 2, 12, at 462. ME quid emphasis placed pro much on the was Here, primarily provided incorrect, and its focus on the quo factor is and real estate houses facilities quid pro application Court’s soci- religious worship religious other Per- quo inapposite to our review. See rate. of the users of eties at low None Orono, Developers, LLC v. Town egrine renewal retreat and CFRC’s ¶ 9, A.2d Moreover, individuals. 1996 were provide adequate record does not basis D. Conclusion organizations determine how the concludes that Court actually used rented the in 1996 er- committed an Indeed, findings the facilities. by denying ror of law quotes stipulations they because viewed actu- guessing leave one as what length affiliation, nature Religious ally facilities occurred property, recreational activities on its only Consequently, speculate one can quo, quid pro the lack of a and inciden- for re- primarily whether those uses were tal, prop- on the non-charitable activities observ- primarily creation erty, as/being an absolute bar certain, however, is that the ance. What is qualifying for a charitable Commissioners, re- County after careful County the Although Commissioners’ record, reasonably of the could have view precision, findings and conclusions lack in unpersuaded been that CFRC’s conduct in de- language there no their written is exclusively, predominant- or 1996was even support cision the Court’s character- ly, pur- for a benevolent and charitable County ization that the Commissioners pose. any or the fac- foregoing treated all of for a tors as an absolute bar to Quid Quo C. Pro Rather, the Coun- heavily analysis relies 56] Court’s denied the ty [¶ Commissioners County stated, suggestion because, on the that the Com- was they as CFRC erred organized and the and conducted “primarily missioners much on the lack and had “failed placing emphasis religious purposes” too organized it and pro quo determining of whether that quid demonstrate solely How- conducted for benevolent qualifies for an abatement. ever, purposes.” County the Commission- charitable we review the County is as rental Although use of its the Commissioners pro- it religious groups to demonstrate that and individu- "failed of such benefit general any significant Moreover, to the vides benefit County the Commissioners als.” community pro- or that it public or the local "failed to demonstrate concluded that CFRC government the a service or benefit that vides solely organized and conducted it County provide,” the Com- otherwise would and charitable or "pri- was missioners concluded that CFRC exemp- which it the real estate for seeks organized marily conducted solely used for charitable benevo- religious groups purposes to benefit certain purposes.” lent individuals, primary ... [CFRC's] which clarify eight outside the area in the The Court’s effort to the acres run. pantry food law the was governing support pro- of its decision to remand this attorneys, in and their parties [¶ 62] The ceeding the Coun- is unwarranted because to create more thor- misguided effort ty no error Commissioners committed of record, stipulations ough then entered into to prove law. CFRC bore the burden County the Com- supplement intended to County it came Regrettably, missioners’ those decision. within spirit intent of charita- stipulations part County not a of the were tax exemption ble statute. Credit Coun- not findings and do reflect Commissioners’ ¶ Ctrs., Inc., seling 2003 ME 10 n. findings or the factual conclusions By A.2d at providing County County Commissioners. ambiguous Commissioners with an state- Thus, issue, I agree as to this organizational purpose ment of its and an comment at clari- majority’s footnote conduct, amorphous portrait of its actual stipulation fying that or “[correction to meet CFRC faded its burden. We the record in the rules are not provisions judgment. should affirm the addition permit intended to record materials, replacement of new facts or SAUFLEY, C.J., dissenting. of the fact-finder’s decision with one more urged by I concur in the result parties,” of the liking citing dissenting opinion separately and write Guaranty Beane v. Maine Insurance procedural address the odd posture this ¶¶ Ass’n, 9-12, matter findings and to note the limited 286-87. upon which I would appellate base the Accordingly, distinct from the dis- review. majority, sent and I would not use or out, As the opinion lays Court’s rely stipulations any way. those Be- Fellowship Christian and Renewal Cen- findings cause review we must ter’s challenge of a tax denial ex- adjudicators, case the Com- emption for a portion previ- its land has missioners, stipulations par- ously appeal. been reviewed on See ties, rely only I would on the Com- Christian Fellowship & Ctr. v. Renewal findings. light missioners’ viewed When Limington, 769 A.2d of the dissenting law as articulated appeal 834. The result first was a opinion, findings supported by those are remand to the Commissioners for record, join I accordingly, factual findings sufficient to allow for a urged by dissenting opinion. result ¶ 19, complete on appeal. review Id. A.2d and 840-41. the County

[¶ When remand,

completed they their actions on

concluded again was approximately eighty- available for

Case Details

Case Name: Christian Fellowship & Renewal Center v. Town of Limington

Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date Published: Apr 28, 2006

Citation: 896 A.2d 287

Court Abbreviation: Me.