*1 city because to Potential benefits with im- the tracks cross motorists could LAKE IDEAL LIFE CHURCH OF citizens, Bemidji’s by cross- ELMO, Petitioner, proved safety. of a bridge instead on a ing Relator-Respondent, the tracks inconven- not suffer crossing, would grade for a train crossing waiting at the ience WASHINGTON, risk of OF enjoy a reduced COUNTY pass would Respondent-Relator. colli- likelihood of injury from the decreased train. sion with a Nos. city because 5. Potential benefits Minnesota. Supreme Court of access to emer- quicker citizens would have Firetrucks and ambulances gency services. 13, 1981. March grade required to use not be would would these vehicles crossings. Because pass, train
never have to wait for a respond
bridge them would allow delay. without
emergencies bridge
6. Potential benefits improved access provide
would safer Bemidji. city servicing trains benefits from im- enjoy
would economic compa- the railroad
proved rail service improved enjoy profits from ser-
ny would city.
vice may benefits that
There be other hearing new
parties will demonstrate will discover the commissioner we do expertise. own Because
through his important these and other
not know how be, will cannot make
possible benefits we will deter- comparison of benefits that of costs. This proper
mine the allocation commissioner.
we leave to the and remanded
The case must be reversed taking for the of addi- commissioner evidence, findings, new and for
tional of costs of construc-
proper apportionment with this bridge new consistent
tion of the
opinion.
Reversed and remanded. *2 Pardee,
Sinclair L. & Edward Pardee and Sinclair, Paul, I. St. Life Gordon Elmo. Lake Warren Spannaus, Atty. Gen. and Paul R. Kempainen, Sp. Atty. Gen., Dept, Asst. Revenue, Paul, County of Wash- St. ington.
SCOTT, Justice. appeal by This is an the Ideal Life Church (Ideal Church) from a of Lake Elmo property, jointly home owned and holding that the was. Court the Tax decision of Jr., Rossow, his exempt from by LeRoy was not homesteaded estate involved real Washington wife, Genevieve, County together had built tax. The who ground that the Tax cross-appealed on the in 1971 or 1972.1 home real estate in ruling that the erred in Court incorporated Life Church was The Ideal *3 classifi- a homestead entitled to question is It original 1977.2 had an on December on the Tax Court its affirm cation. We of membership persons, all whom of eleven but reverse exemption, to refusal declare an family.3 At the Rossow were members of classifica- ruling of homestead on the latter membership in- the of its had time trial tion. eighteen persons.4 to or creased seventeen 27, 1977, Life the Ideal December On prior the LeRoy testified that to Rossow . Church, LeRoy actions of Ros- through the his the Ideal Life Church incorporation of the Elmo sow, application to Lake made religious organiza- “family” functioned prop- from real the Assessor for tion named “Rossow’s Revival.” This or- home in LeRoy Rossow’s erty taxes of grant- a ganization under charter operated Ideal Washington County, Minnesota. The of ed the Life Church Modes- Universal LeRoy that Rossow’s alleged Life Church to, that Rossow testified LeRoy California. property church with- a church or home was he the Life Church paid to Universal $50 exemption provided by property the concerning exemptions information X, 1, and Minn.Stat. art. § Minn.Const. also and the formation of churches. He application was 272.02(1)(5) This paid to the Universal Life Church $20 assessor, county the local and denied the a ordination obtain minister’s certificate. review, Board of and State boards n Although LeRoy that Rossow indicated 11, 1979, the January On Equalization. was forerunner “Rossow’s Revival” a petition for review Ideal Life Church filed his corporation, he testified that present Tax Court found with the Tax Court. The has no connec- present Ideal Life Church subject of the proper that classification Life Mo- tion with Universal Church of a not ex- property was that of homestead desto, California. empt from taxation. was day The after the Ideal Life Church subject The estate that this real LeRoy incorporated, December Elmo, City of appeal is located in the Lake signed Rossow and his wife a contract Washington County, Minnesota. The rec- home conveying deed their church. subject property since ord owner of the 28, 1977, Church, LeRoy On December Rossow 28,1977, is the Ideal Life December quitclaim deed which Inc., signed his wife also a to the Ideal Life of Lake Elmo. Prior convey Ideal purported of the the home becoming the record owner Church’s trade, religion. By LeRoy hearing, or self- At the the value of the Rossow is a 1. time $55,000. working employed is a was The one- out of an office electrician basement, story subject a and-one-half home with full is the he maintains in the bathrooms, bedrooms, three two recreation appeal. developer He also is land room, fireplace, dining room a bar city of Lake Elmo. living room and kitchen. original LeRoy elev- 3. testified Rossow incorporation signed by The articles of were wife, himself and his en members included LeRoy and Rossow and Daniel Ros- Genevieve brother, children, LeRoy two Rossow’s their brother). per- (LeRoy’s sow The same three children, Daniel, LeRoy his wife and three membership form the the Ideal sons entire and mother. Rossow's father Life Church’s of trustees. All three indi- board appointed viduals by been “ministers” also have incorporation members since LeRoy The additional also board trustees. Rossow Carlson, Gary neighbor, wife two his are a is known as the “chairman” of the Ideal Life Monelte, Larry children, one “president” minor one Steven of the church. LeRoy Church and Notwithstanding Westbrock, titles, apparently unidenti- one other Rossow these person. theology fied formal studies in never taken
3H day quitclaim you Church.5 The have right Life before to believe 27,1977, signed, you items LeRoy deed December choose. We don’t Rossow, say you as chairman of the Ideal Life have to believe in Christ you Church, have to things believe in certain filed a of Owner other “Statement Be Exempt Real Estate Claimed to place
Taxation” with the Lake Elmo Assessor. What gather this is is and to LeRoy relationship. On cross-examination Rossow admit- have a community I don’t know, just it’s fellowship ted these events were the result of a kind type thing, get things off your chest, “preconceived plan.” can somebody you turn to in time bylaws Life Church also * * need *. bylaws were introduced into evidence. The second regarding source evidence require voting members to be at eigh- least the beliefs of the Ideal bemay years presently teen old. There six *4 bylaws. found in the church Article III family adult members of the Rossow who bylaws reads as follows: qualify congregational meetings to vote at non-family four adult and members. Doctrine Rossow all family aspects The controls A. All responsibility Christians have a Church, Ideal including Life control of men, toward their fellow a responsi- property. the church’s real The admission bility not only by dictated the word approval requires of new members Christ, of Jesus but by moral law church’s board of trustees. The board throughout history. may only of trustees overruled B. All have right Christians to the voting three-fourths majority of members. Life, Ideal whatever he or she might be, Many long of the of the believe it beliefs Ideal Life as it hurts offends no one else. Church were made at trial. known The LeRoy statements of Rossow made earlier C. The word of isGod free. at the State Equalization hearing Board of LeRoy On cross-examination Rossow admit- September 28, 1979, on were read into the ted bylaws that and the “Doctrine” record, acknowledged by LeRoy and Rossow adopted only contained therein were after He as true. also testified that the beliefs hearing his unsuccessful to obtain a real set forth at that hearing changed, have not property tax before the State and remain essentially Specifi- the same. Board Equalization.7 cally, LeRoy Rossow stated that the doc- Other evidence at adduced trial revealed trine the Ideal Life Church “was estab- that the Ideal does require Life Church on lished a casual and basis” that: being. a belief in any supreme The Ideal have no real formal doctrine that [W]e Life any Church also does sacra- anybody guidelines to follow for ments, rituals or literature of its own. everybody to follow. It’s on an individu- Moreover, despite language in the Ideal basis. al incorporation Church’s articles stat- We believe things. in two basic ing education, That that one of purposes its one, responsibility we have a up toward the church has not set courses of in- brotherhood of And man. second that struction. transactions, Notwithstanding LeRoy 7.LeRoy these Rossow testified: family continuously Rossow and his resided in [T]hey question you have a had asked the do property question. great majority the the Ideal Life Church’s you by-laws code have a set of of ethics or do expenses are for the I and said I wasn’t aware that we needed mortgage payments and maintenance costs of church, specific those good items to be a but it’s question. home in adopted went ahead and idea. And we by-laws a set of a code of ethics and and 6. All of the documents involved the sale of formal after that time. written doctrine the Rossow home to the Ideal Life Church were completed by LeRoy Rossow without the bene- legal fit of counsel. 272.02(1)(5)(1980), for and Minn.Stat. § record also indicates that The trial court “churches, and houses church Life Church are free Ideal of the
members worship.” other belong to actively and practice wife, LeRoy Rossow’s own religious faiths. (2) erred in rul- Whether the Tax Court minister, trustee, mem- Genevieve —a qualified ing that Life Church —remains ber of the Ideal for homestead classification. Church. Roman Catholic member proper held that 1. The Tax Court Angels Guardian currently attends the She was that of a classification LeRoy Ros- Lake Elmo. Parish homestead, not of a “church or house that he his acknowledged wife that sow also law, worship” under Minnesota “couple hundred dollars a contributed a exempt subject property was not Angels His Church. two year” to Guardian found property taxation. Tax Court in the Catholic also were enrolled children family were the LeRoy Rossow his program Guardian religious education entity. church controlling force behind the Angels Church in 1978 primary The court further found that testified LeRoy Rossow family’s precon- the Rossow purpose behind meetings on generally holds Life Church plan incorporation and its subse- ceived After the Sunday every month. the first was to quent application for they have a din- greet each other members LeRoy with all the benefits provide Rossow topic is dis- ner, specific time a at which home, time of a while at the same tax-free cussed, “a clos- which there and after substantially same use and maintaining *5 ideals.” wife ing, commitment as if he and his church’s] control of [the problems” are meetings, At “world church were fee owners. come with their
discussed and members
by
situa-
presented
The issue
this factual
things
“get
off
their
problems
own
impression
before this
tion is one
first
Although nonmembers are not
chests.”
Ideal Life Church seeks
Appellant
court.
meetings, visitors
usually present at these
of the Min-
bring itself within the ambit
sometimes attend.8
legislative proper-
nesota constitutional
X,
1,
Article
ty
exemptions.
taxation
§
was
this matter
tried before
At the time
Constitution reads
the revised Minnesota
Court,
had
the Tax
the Ideal
Church
as
part
relevant
follows:
under the fed-
applied
exemption
for a tax
churches,
property, houses of
as
church
Revenue Code
eral Internal
[A]ll
* * *
exempt
tax-
however,
worship,
shall be
not,
received a
It had
institution.
in this section.
except
provided
ation
as
application before the Tax
ruling on its
On December
Court rendered its decision.
is contained in Minn.
exemption
A similar
27, 1979, the
Internal Revenue Ser-
federal
(1980),
272.02(1)(5)
which states:
Stat. §
Attorney Gen-
vice
the Minnesota
informed
provided in other subdivisions
Except as
Life Church had
Office that the Ideal
eral’s
272.025,
all
section or
section
be
on the merits not to
an
been determined
in this section to
property described
Reve-
exempt
under Internal
exempt
herein
shall be
extent
limited
501(c)(3).
nue Code §
from taxation.
us
following
are before
for
issues
(5)
churches,
property,
resolution:
church
All
worship.
houses of
(1)
the Ideal Life Church
an
Whether
have
property tax ex-
well-settled rules
entity falling within the
Certain
X,
relating
to statutes
provided by Minn.Const. art.
been established
emption
LeRoy
average
LeRoy
Easter service.
an
attended
church’s
Rossow testified
vary
gatherings
meeting
“East-
these
an
attendance will
from two
Rossow described
church
meeting” involving
persons.
er
a substantial
He
testified that
brunch
to six
also
family
service,
fifty
sixty persons
members.
number of Rossow
attended Easter
ninety-five persons
eighty-five
in 1980
ex-
provisions providing
apply
constitutional
public
of en-
policy
emption from taxes. As
in Camping
stated
couraging private
educational
institu-
State,
v.
& Educational Foundation
tions, which policy can be traced back to
245,
(1969):
Minn.
9.
Missouri Church
state, county
exempted
exemption
Const,
from
and local
from
under Mo.
which
ad valorem taxation
X,
personal,
property,
provides
and
actu-
“all
taxation “all
real
art.
which
* * *
exclusively
religious
exclusively
ally
regularly
religious
for
used
and
used
* * *
worship
worship.”
may
exempted
taxation
7.
In
afore-mentioned theis-
contrast
Petitioner
is not an
.
institution
definitions,
tic
its
(as
which
advances
that term is
brief cites Webster’s Seventh New Col-
understood)
commonly
as a
way
life
legiate Dictionary
definition
for all men.
Appellant’s
term
brief
“church”.
indicates
8.
require
Petitioner does not
a belief
that:
any Supreme Being
or beings.
Collegiate
The Webster’s
New
Seventh
be,
may
Whatever else it
the evidence is
Dictionary defines “church” as
clear
that Petitioner
simply
Building
public, especially
1.
Chris-
“church” as that term is used in Minn.
worship;
tian
X,
Const. Art.
1 and
Sec.
Minn.Stat. Sec.
clergy
2.
of a reli-
officialdom
272.02,
1(5).
subd.
gious body; and
The Tax
analysis
Court’s factual
test
body
organization
3. a
adopted by
is similar to
one
this court in
believers.
See,
charitable tax
g.,
cases.
e.
ascertaining
legal meaning
In
of the Mayo Foundation v.
Commissioner Reve
“church,”
word
used Minnesota’s ex- nue,
Minn.
236 N.W.2d
emption provisions,
Tax
Court neither
recently,
Most
this court
adopted single, all-purpose
theistic defini-
indicated that
test
such a
means that
tion nor the liberal definition that the Ideal
upon
case must be decided
anal
“[e]ach
[an]
Instead,
Life Church advocates.
it based its
ysis
unique
its own
Worthington
facts.”
upon
decision
a multiple
analysis
factual
Dormitory, Inc. v. Commissioner of Reve
Specifically,
test.
the Tax Court indicated: nue,
(Minn.1980).
5. Petitioner has no ritu- “church” be alleges must reversed. it als, education or courses literature of its that the its pri- Tax Court based decision own. marily the upon the fact that Ideal Life any Church not in require does belief liturgy,
6. Petitioner no other Supreme Being. According meetings appellant, than simple which resemble gatherings mere social or reliance on this factor violates the first discussion groups religious worship. per- rather argument than This is not amendment.
316 exemp- meaning tax in the of Minnesota’s eight cited Tax the Court because suasive decisions, how- of these holding laws. Each its tion support of factors in
separate
ever,
distinguishable
simply
or
either
within
is
was not a “church”
appellant
that
applicable.
tax
meaning Minnesota’s
the
of
lack of belief
which was
one of
only
Humanity, an intermedi-
Fellowship
laws—
of
In
Moreover,
the
Being.
Supreme
in a
that
court held
a belief
appellate
ate state
split
was a
there
recognized that
Court
required under
Being was not
Supreme
in a
belief in a
lack of
authority on whether
tax
California’s
entity from
Being precludes
Supreme
The state con-
“religious worship.”
used in
not, however, ex-
It did
“church.”
being a
respects the
ceded, however, “that
in all
the
over
adopt
of authorities
pressly
one set
Fellowship’s
were similar to those
activities
instead,
other;
it stated:
except
their
groups,
belief
of theistic
necessary for this Court
153
Supreme Being.”
is
in a
lack of belief
[I]t
of this
purposes
adopt
such a rule
previ-
317 Yogi distinguish- WAHL, also is readily Malnak v. Justice (concurring specially). able as a non-tax case. The Third Circuit’s agree While I majority that the finding that transcendental meditation was result correct, reached in this case is I come tax religion any exemp- did not involve to the conclusion on much narrower Instead, tion issues. Malnak involved the grounds. respectfully I disagree with the issue of transcen- teaching of whether majority opinion’s characterization “church,” public dental in a meditation school violated it narrowly because too defines “church” “religion” the First for Amendment establishment clause. constitutional
purposes.
primary
The
issue in this case is
This
duty
reviewing
court’s
in
tax cases
appellant
whether
is in fact
“church” as
has been
in other
defined
cases. Decisions
that
in
exemp
term is
Minnesota’s tax
used
of this court indicate that a decision of the
agree
tion laws. We
with the Tax Court Tax Court will not be
on appeal
disturbed
if
that
not
question is
owned
it has any reasonable basis in law. See Red
by a
We
“church.”
therefore do not reach
Commissioner,
1,
Owl Stores
5,
264 Minn.
the question
of whether
401,
(1962);
117
405
N.W.2d
Western Auto
being
purposes
used
for which the
Supply
Commissioner,
346,
Co. v.
245 Minn.
was
368,
created.
N.W.2d
“[T]he
function of
reviewing
this court in
a deci-
part
2. As
of its conclusions of
sion of the
appeals
board
involving
law the Tax
ruled
Court
questions
of fact
to determine whether
question, though
exempt,
was enti
there is
support
sufficient evidence to
tled to classification as a homestead. The
Commissioner,
decision.” Miller v.
county alleges
its cross-appeal
Minn.
(1953)
59 N.W.2d
omitted).
determining
(citations
Court
erred
“
property was entitled to homestead classifi
organization
Whether
actually
cation
the property’s
classification
formed and
as
operated
tax-exempt
insti
was
pleaded
neither
nor litigated below.
primarily
tution is
of fact. See
may only
Because the Tax Court
review
Commissioner,
Parker
(8th
318 education); United States compulsory organization not an or
Whether is, 850, 163, 13 purpose, Seeger, of 85 S.Ct. nonexempt 380 U.S. substantial deter- course, fact to be question (1965) (exemption of from draft L.Ed.2d 733 As a Court. by the Tax law). mined not will be fact, the determination the belief-sin- The Tax Court evaluated finding unless the by this Court disturbed members. cerity of Ideal Life Church clearly erroneous. perhaps primary, found that court
365 F.2d at
sole,
the Ideal
incorporating
for
purpose
aspects
some
we
Even if
decide
the Rossow
provide
Church was to
the Ideal Life
beliefs of
religious
home
of a tax-free
family with the benefit
evaluated,
must be
Church members
use
control
maintaining the same
while
by
used
Court
type
consideration
find-
This
they
prior
incorporation.
had
inappro
is
majority in this court
clearly
not
erroneous
ing of fact
is
agencies
and tax
are
priate. The Tax Court
here. Further-
should not be overturned
fraud;
kinds
many
concerned with
more,
of none
finding requires
use
therefore,
of the transaction
the substance
by the Tax
the factors enumerated
form,
merely its
must be
operation, not
Court.
Weiss v.
purposes.
See
examined for
asserts,
true,
majority
is
It
not
490,
242, 254,
491,
Stearn,
44 S.Ct.
265 U.S.
attempt
jurisdictions have
a few
"Religion”
(1924); Worthing,
less, J., guaranty, dissenting). from the first into the second Congress so that and now the states are as broadly concerning they restricted the one as regarding the other. Society v. District of Ethical Washington (1957); Fellowship
Columbia, F.2d 127 Alameda, 153 County of Humanity v. 315 P.2d
Cal.App.2d to be cases, were found the beliefs
some “parallel posi- held they
“religious” because respective hold- their *12 in the lives of
tions 166, 85 S.Ct. at Seeger,
ers.” conclude, by thing analo- It is one group of ideas
gy, that thing different quite
religious. It precisely indicia
elucidate what justifying the making and
examined in Malnak, (Adams, F.2d at 207
analogy.
J., concurring). analogies in majority has not used Church; it'
examining the Ideal While the criteria instead.
used defined wrong, case is not based on
result of the members and insincerity of belief just as a home
the use the Rossow home incorporation of the
as it was used before
church, unduly restric- the factors used are agree that I cannot
tive traditional. protect- appropriate a test for use
such liberty of
ing important constitutional religion.
freedom of INC., INVESTMENTS,
C. R.
Petitioner, Appellant, SHOREVIEW, Respondent.
VILLAGE OF
No. 50514.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
March