Ketchikan Gateway Borough v. Ketchikan Indian Corp.

if, in evidentiary hearing its supplemental

disсretion, such a will it believes that necessary or useful. CONCLUSION

IV. support order is- the child

We VACATE superior court and REMAND by the

sued proceedings in accor- for further

the case opinion. with

danee BOROUGH GATEWAY

KETCHIKAN Gateway Borough Board

Ketchikan

Equalization, Appellants, CORPORATION, INDIAN

KETCHIKAN

Appellee.

No. S-10332.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Aug. considering, Another ent's total incomes from all sources." on available infor- based income income, skills, mation, parent's past work regulations specifically relates section of the education, job opportunities history, and the imputing potential for individuals de- income parent physically resides." voluntarily unemployed under- in the area where termined to be potential 125.020(b). employed "determine directs CSED to 15 AAC Brandt-Erichsen, Borough Attor- percent exempt as Seott A. committed cоuld be Ketchikan, Appellants. sixty percent exemption, ney, to clinic use.1 The appraised on an value of the land and based Lindemuth, Dorsey Whitney & M. Jahna January partially completed as of LLP, Appellee. Anchorage, for $2,360,300, resulted in a taxable val FABE, Justice, $944,100. accepted Before: Chief the as ue of The board BRYNER, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, and specific position but made no find sessor's CARPENETI, Justices. ings. presented to the board con- The evidence OPINION building cerning space the amount of in the

MATTHEWS, Justice. purposes committed to clinic that was not conflicting. spаrse and KIC's zon- fed- was both superior applied the The court that ing permit application eral doctrine to from bor- indicated two space building ough clinic, taxes all in a that con- be used for the one floor floors would tribally operated a clinic that is tains offices, would be used for and two floors oversight by the Indian Health to detailed space." plans The of the would be "lease question presented The narrow Service. building space, indicate floors of clinic two space building in the that is here is whether space, one floor of office one floor of lease by use the clinic should be not committed to space, daycare space. floor of But it and one negative exempt. We answer zoning application is unclear whether the space necessarily part perva- of a such is plans the reflected the intent of KIC as of sively comprehensivelyregulated and 1, 2000, January regarding the use of the program borough's the and building. hearing At the board KIC's attor- inconsequential. property is not the ney argued that all of the floor that "is used, being being hospital рur- used for I. AND FACTS PROCEEDINGS acknowledged poses." But he that there conveyed In 1997 the States a United spaces "[t]he were unused and that intent of parcel located Ketehi- three-quarter-acre unknown," space is still KIC for the unused Corporation kan to the Ketchikan Indian strategy although "long-term plans and in- (KIC). began five-story to construct a KIC expansion hospital cludes their functions that, building completed, intended when was spaces." general into those unused KIC's primarily by run to contain a clinic KIC but manager acknowledged that there is by funded the Indian Health Service. As building might the either be leased or day, January building tax the the programs other of KIC. He stated used for complete. was more than half obligated to lease that KIC would be devote exemption requested KIC a tax for the pro- Health revenues to Indian Services property Gateway from the Ketchikan Bor- grams, that but later stated lease revenues ough. borough initially grant- The assessor pay on the could be used to the debt service percent exemption. ed a ten He charitable building. percent determined that ten of the services paid protest resulting the tax- KIC under the commu- offered KIC were availableto es, $12,462.12, appealing the board's both nity large at and not restricted to Alaska filing separate seeking a decision and suit appealed Borough Natives. KIC the borough cross-appealed the tax refund. The Equalization. Board of At a before decision, arguing exemption board's position. the board the assessor modified his percent have should been ten rather theory He continued to adhere sixty percent, than and filed a counterclaim percent could have a ten charita- fifty seeking a exemption, ble but added that another that the clinic is not a declaration 1. The assessor testified that the third and fourth use. floors and were for clinic some common areas hospital.

nonprofit Taxpayer exemptions The court con- strictly are against taxpayer solidated the cases. construed favor taxing authority.4 The burden of Following briefing argument, the su- proving eligibility for an onis perior court taxpayer.5 policy underlying the rule of (1) cross-appeal dismissed on the strict construction and the proof burden оf is: grounds standing lacked property All is benefited security and, alternatively, pre- that the was protection State, furnished appealing cluded from decision that only just equitable expenses adopted position in the assessor's its entire- operation incurred in the and maintenance ty; government fairly apportioned should be all.[6] upon property entirely held was implied preemp because of federal Notwithstanding the rule of strict tion, Board, Navajo based on Ramak School construction, question where the is whether 2 Mexico; Inc. v. Bureau Revenue Newof of requires exemption federal law of tribal taxation, ambiguities interests from in feder $62,694.70 awarded full fees of and al law should be resolved of favor 29.45.500(a); costs to KIC under AS tribe.7 (4) ruled that its earlier decision dismiss- ing borough's cross-appeal in effect dis- equalization may spatial Boards of borough's counterclaim. ly missed apportion exempt nonexempt from uses of a nonexempt space. and tax the borough challenges appeal, On the su- equalization all contested cases boards of are perior cоurt's decision on the merits required findings to make of fact sufficientto exempted portions the extent explain the reasons for their decisions.8 building that were not committed use as findings deferentially Such are reviewed part of the clinic. The also chal- they supported by will be if affirmed are lenges attorney's of full award fees. substantial evidence.9 STANDARDOF AND REVIEW GEN- II. III. DISCUSSION10 ERAL RELEVANT PRINCIPLES TO

TAX EXEMPTION CASES Space Building A. that Has Not Been Committed for Use question The main involved this Exempt Not Clinic Is under the Im- apply case of is one law which "we our plied Preemption ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‍Federal Doctrine. independent judgment adоpt the rule of persuasive light prece law is most of The court concluded that 3 dent, reason, policy." federal doctrine as Nome, City 2. 458 U.S. 102 S.Ct. 73 L.Ed.2d 1174 707 P.2d at 875. of Balough Borough, v. Fairbanks North Star 995 State, Dep't Transp. & Pub. Facilities v. Sand- of (Alaska 2000). P.2d 254 ers, (Alaska 1997). 944 P.2d 456 Washington, 4. Sisters Providence in Inc. v. appeal untimely. 10. KIC contends that of (Alaska Anchorage, Mun. 672 P.2d 447 of conclude to the the notice contrary, 1983). appeal of was filed ruled that before the court borough's counterclaim was dismissed. The Alaska, City Bishop Nome v. Catholic N. of sought declaratory counterclaim reliеf and thus (Alaska 1985). 707 P.2d year-specific procedural was to the borough's defenses on which the dismissal of the (quoting League Id. at 879 Animal Rescue cross-appeal prematurity was based. of a Assessors, The Bourne's 310 Mass. 37 N.E.2d appeal may ignored (1941))). notice of be where no harm done, and that is the case here. Garrison v. Mexico, 7. Cotton Petroleum v. New Dixon, 163, 177, 104 LEd.2d decision of impliedly-pre-empted reflected in the 1982 the United to the state activi ty." Navajo Supreme Court RamaH States Board, Inc. v. Bureau Revenue School Instead, applied pre we have a flexible applied to the New Mexico11 emption analysis particular sensitive to the its total and resulted legislation facts and involved. Each case Implied pre taxation. "requires particularized examination of emption in Indian tax cases is distinct from state, federal, the relevant inter preemption in other areas of the law. Bd., ests." Ramah Sch. Inc. v. Mexico, preemption generally Bureau Revenue New The law of federal re quires assumption that one "start with the 73 LEd.2d (1982).[15] police powers that the historic the States superseded by

were not Federal [a] Act application involved the of New pur the clear and unless was manifest gross receipts receipts Mexico's tax to that a pose Congress."12 non-Indian construction firm received from a tribal school board for the construction of a Congress To determine whether has school for Indian children on a reservation. preempted particular state action in a are Supreme Court held that law [glenerally, apply two-step na ... we impliedly preempted tax, application of the First, аnalysis preemption questions. following methodology a established in White Congress we look to see whether has Bracker,16 Apache Mountain Tribe v. requir overtly subject preempted the matter the ing particularized "a examination of the rele regulate, explicitly, state wishes to either state, federal, vant and tribal interests."17 by declaring preempt its intent to all state The Court policy noted the federal of encour authority, implicitly, by occupying or aging tribal control of education and ex regulation entire field of on the plained in "comprehensive detail the per and Webster, question. See 621 P.2d at 897-98. regulatory system pertaining vasive" to the Second, if preemp neither kind of direct construction financing found, tion is we look to whether By contrast, schools.18 the Ramah Court particular and state law conflict found that the state's interest the tax was If regulations instance. state and federal inconsequential, Noting the historical fact openly regulations or if conflict state ob the state public had closed the purpose regulations, struct of federal reservation, school near the the Court stated: supremacy then the clause blocks the state [TJhe State does not seek to assess its tax regulation. 900-01; See id. at Bald governmental return for the functions it Alascom, [v. RCA provides to those who must bear the bur- (Alaska 1977) [13] paying den Having this tax. declined to contrast, questions implied In fed any responsibility take for the education of preemption eral in Indian tax cases "are not children, these Indian preelud- the State is by resolved reference pre to standards of imposing ed from an additional burden on emption developed that have in other areas comprehensive federal scheme intend- of the law" and are "not limited to cases in provide ed to this education-a scheme Congress expressly-as which has "left the State with no duties or compared has Petroleum, 176-77, 458 U.S. 102 S.Ct 73 LEd.2d 14. Cotton 490 U.S. at S.Ct. 1698. Id. at 109 S.Ct. 1698. Bechtel, Inc., 12. Webster v. 621 P.2d (Alaska 1980) (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator 16. 448 U.S. 65 LEd.2d 665 67 S.Ct. 1146, 91 L.Ed. Corp., (1947)). Ramah, 458 U.S. at 102 S.Ct. 3394. State, Tlingit-Haida Reg'l Elec. Auth. v. 839-41, Id. at 102 S.Ct. 3394. P.3d responsibilities," ^[19] [100 2578]. Based on these facts and on our conclusionthat collectionof the that the "case would The Court also observed policy taxes would undermine federal "in a actively seeking if be different the State were context in which the Federal Government purpose constructing, for the tax revenues regulate has undertaken to min the most assisting provide, adequate the effort ute of the opera details" Tribe's timber Navajo children." educational facilities for Ramah tions, we held that pre 20 the taxes were 2578],[22] Id., empted. at 149[100S.Ct. Supreme The other United States Court finding implied preemption an case In Equalization Board Borough It with Ramah Bracker.21 has common Ketchikan v. Alaska Native Brotherhood comprehensive per a the twin factors of Sisterhood, Camp & No. we had occasion vasively activity concerning regulated application to rule on the inconsequential taxing interests and state municipal doctrine to real interest. In Cotton Petroleum estate taxes.23 At taxability issue was the Supreme United States Court summarized federally funded built KIC and Bracker as follows: long-term held it under a lease. KIC Bracker, we addressed the cultural, educational, conducted "various vo impose whether Arizona could its motor cational, community pro service carrier license and use fuel taxes on a grams" in building.24 We observed that logging company's nonmember use of the tax provide revenues "will be used to solely roads located within an Indian reser- police protection premises, fire to the Significantly, vation. the roads at issue water, provide well as to electrical and sewer "built, maintained, policed were exelu- building.... services to the Ketchikan has Government, sively by the Federal strong raising these revenues Tribe, contractors," and its at 150 they are for 2578], [100 and the "unable S.Ct. State was provided property." services that must to be the identify any regulatory to function or ser- borough We concludedthat the taxes 25 performed justify [it] vice ... that would preempted light were not of the services the assessment taxes for activities on providing: the was Bureau and tribal roads within the reser- analysis vation," id., [We conclude that our is in com- at 148-149 [100 2578]. S.Ct. plete id., accordance with 2599, also at 174 [100 See case, Supreme Court struck down a ("The (Powell, ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‍J., concurring) 684] L.Ed.2d gross receipts imposed state tax raising no on a non- State has revenues building Indian subcontractor of a school from the use of Indian roads that cost it nothing and constructed for the tribe on their over which it exercises no control."). Moreover, reservation. The Court held that the tax undisputed it was implicitly preempted by compre- Bracker the economic of the burden was Id., ultimately taxes fell on the Tribe. at regulatory govern- hensive federal scheme 843, (quoting nondiscriminatory at apply Id. 102 S.Ct. 3394 Warren held that state laws that Comm'n, Trading country Post Co. v. Tax to Americans Native outside of Indian Arizona 1242, may only by preempted 'express U.S. 85 S.Ct. 14 L.Ed.2d 165 be federal contrary,' by generalized law to the Bracker, policy. Apache White Mtn. Tribe v. 2578, U.S. 144 n. 100 S.Ct. 65 LEd.2d Id. at 844 n. 102 S.Ct. 3394. (1980)."). 335 F.3d 872. See Blunk also Dep't Transp., 177 F.3d Arizona 21. 448 U.S. 100 S.Ct. 65 L.Ed.2d 665 (9th Cir.1999) ("White balancing Mountain test" apply country). does not of Indian outside 490 U.S. at 109 S.Ct. 1698. We note 23. 666 P.2d 1022 n. 5 position that the Ninth Circuit takes the that the implied preemption Bracker doctrine does not Id. at 1017. apply country. outside of Indian Malabed v. (9th Slope Borough, North 335 F.3d 864 Cir. 2003) ("[The Supreme unmistakably Court has Id. at 1022. space. as of the ing the uncommitted Since of autonomous ing the construction uncertain how the uncommit tax date it was The Court noted facilities educational used, space cannot be bе space ted generate to reve tax served that the any particular pro part of considered to be state, providing was not for the nue pervasively is gram, much less one which any tribe. correlative services regulated.27 "In opinion specifically indicates: Court's case, not seek to assess the State does that the second element also believe governmental func for the its tax return preemption cases-rela implied must bear provides it to those who tions tively inconsequential state interest-is miss paying [458 this tax." burden in Board оbservations ing this case. Our 3394.] at 102S.Ct. concerning the substantial Equalization of services however, borough afforded to the us, that the the taxes In the case before are in return for applicable Ketchikan now assessed are as tribe provides it governmental functions they as were that case.28 Accordingly, property leased KIC. Accordingly, it clear that the un seems impermissible, nor is it is not the tax not entitled to a tax committed regulations by federal preempted uncertainty much exemption.29 But there is apparent that when the "relevant much us as tо how the record before interests," federal, state, Ra and tribal January 2000. The uncommitted as of was 8894], (838, mak, are at any findings other made no on this or board balanced, Ketchikan's asser examined presentations on this subject, parties' and the reasonable.[26] taxing authority is tion of A remand point vague and unfocused. were case, for a new before the board will be present in our view the In the appropri necessary in order to determine an building that is not used or space in the spatial apportionment. The board should ate part clinic cannot to use as of the committed findings supporting its deter make written exempted be considered preemp mination. taxation under One essential feature

tion doctrine. Attorney's Fees. B. Costs and the activities in doctrine is that remanding for a new subject comprehensive perva Because we are must be appropriate spatial hearing to determine the oversight. operation While the sive federal apportionment between clinic and non-clinic may to such of the clinic well use, longer certain that KIC it is no will oversight, cannot be said concern- the same pro- given that the state for this conclusion was Id. at 1022 n. tribe and to the vided substantial services to the producer, oil whereas Ramah and Bracker "in- Am., v. Catholic Univ. In Dist. Columbia complete abdication or noninvolvement of volved 915, (D.C.1979); 921-22 Our Savior 397 A.2d activity." the State in the on-reservation Cotton Revenue, v. 204 Ill Lutheran Church Dep't of 185, S.Ct. 1698. Petroleum 490 U.S. at 109 1198, 395, Corp., .App.3d N.E.2d 150 Ill. Dec. 562 (1990); Way and United the Midlands Equalization, Douglas County Neb. Following Appeals Bd. Mexico ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‍Court of New (1983), case, Bd., all cited in footnote 337 N.W.2d Inc. v. New Mexico Sch. dissenting opinion, space, the unused 18 of the Taxation & Revenue 127 N.M. Dep't, used, tax- denied, when was intended to be used for (N.M.App.1999), 127 N.M. P.2d 1021 cert. contrast, denied, (1999),cert. exempt purposes. By present in the 981 P.2d 1207 how unused will be (1999), case it is unknown the 145 LEd.2d 252 used, appears at least near-term but it that borough superior court found that the taxes purposes or used it will either be leased to others "general preemp preempted were also under the programs supra page of KIC. See for other However, Congress has not tion doctrine." tax, overtly preempted the and becausе state and area, Mexico, laws do not conflict in this federal 28. See Cotton Petroleum v. New preemption federal is not barred LEd.2d 109 S.Ct building (1989), not dedicat from apply the where the Court declined to Tlingit-Haida Reg'l approach ed to use the clinic. See implied preemption to Ramah/Bracker State, (Alaska produced non- a state severance tax on oil Elec. Auth. v. 2001). of the reasons Indians on a reservation. One recognition sovereignty, of tribal and the superior therefore vacate prevail. We costs sovereignty in of full rеasonable grant to KIC encouragement of this con court's indepen remand, gressional promoting Acts prevails If it on attorney's fees. development{[.]"2 Rele dence economic however, full reason be entitled to KIC will statutes, therefore, attorney's fees under AS "must vant federal be able costs light policies in 29.45.500(a) examined of 'the broad that Gateway Borough and Ketchikan sovereignty § 45.13.1105.30 underlie them and the notions of Code developed that have from historical traditions "3 independence." of tribal IV. CONCLUSION in of the federal and tribal Consideratiоn court's hold- REVERSE step balancing first terests is the building space in the not committed ing that required by implied preemption exempt from by the clinic is to use analysis. opinion The concludes court's the board for a new and REMAND to taxes weight at all on this half of there is no spatial appropriate hearing to determine the comprehen because there not a scale clinic and non-clinic apportionment between program dealing pervasive sive and remand, light In we VACATE areas. spaces. But I with unused believe and attor- superior court's аward of costs unduly scope of in court has narrowed the ney's fees KIC. quiry. proper is whether operating a care Indian tribe that is Justice, FABE, whom Chief with facility aegis under of the Indian Self- CARPENETI, Justice, joins, dissenting. Determination and Education Assistance FABE, Justice, with whom Chief (ISDEAA)4 granted can Act reasonable Justice, CARPENETI, joins, dissenting. flexibility extending exemption its tax building- disagree temporarily spaces the court's conclusion unused I with space in KIC's uncommon such facilities. the uncommitted situation not view, my borough taxes. Looking question, the fed at this broader sufficiently strong presented a fed- KIC hаs strong. eral and tribal interests are clear and to allow extension eral and tribal health care services is Provision of Indian temporarily unused its tax regulated; pervasively comprehensively and spaces. both in the ISDEAA and this is manifest Improvement Act recognizes, the the Indian Health Care opinion Unit As the court's (IHCIA).5 held in Ramah Supreme Court intention Congress expressed its ed States operating under that those the ISDEAA questions the same contracts receive self-determination require particularized "a tax cases gov funding as the federal amount of state, federal, the relevant examination of pre Informing the departments was still tribal interests."1 if one of its ernment analysis are "the traditional notions In Ra- emption question.6 providing the services (2001). §§ Borough 5. 25 U.S.C. v. Port Graham 30. See Kenai Peninsula (Alaska 1994); Kenai Penin- Corp., 871 P.2d 1135 (2001); 450j-1(a)(1) Ra § Borough Region, see also 807 P.2d 6. 25 U.S.C. Inc., v. Cook Inlet sula 1991). (Alaska Bd., Navajo 487 v. N.M. Taxation & mah Sch. Inc. 101, 1021, N.M. Revenue 127 Dep't, (N.M.App.1999), denied, 127 N.M. Bd., 1033 cert. 1046; Op. Sch. Inc. v. 1. at denied, (1999), 528 U.S. P.2d 1207 cert. 981 832, 838, N.M., Revenue 458 U.S. Bureau of of L.Ed.2d 252 S.Ct 73 L.Ed.2d 1174 ("Congress provided communi that Indian has by financially transfer of ties will not suffer Ramah, U.S. at 102 S.Ct. 3394. government to tribal from the federal services purpose providing agencies.... of The Act's Apache (quoting Tribe v. Id. White Mountain funding that the federal with the same tribes 144-45, Bracker, 448 U.S. agency the same service is receive for (1980)). 65 L.Ed.2d 665 imposes a tax that makes State undercut if the expensive for performance more of the service agency."). the federal the tribe than for §§ 450-458bbb-2 4. 25 U.S.C. v. Alaska Na Borough Ketchikan im moh, that the burden found the Court for Sisterhood, Camp No. Brotherhood & tive impeded "the by taxation posed the state's Borough's upheld the in we promot in interest clearly expressed federal interests authority.11 and tribal The federal quantity' of educational 'quality and ing the There, case, however, were different. in that depleting the Indians opportunities for KIC was only examined whether we of Indian for the construction funds available Reorganization under the Indian valorem taxes from ad spaces unused taxes on Local schools."7 theory of under a tribal Act,1 interest in impede the federal similarly could theory under a of federal sovereignty,13or reducing care Indian promoting that none instrumentality.14 concluded have Indian tribes that availableto the funds merit,15 part in had "be of these theories unoccupied space.8 buildings with clinic generating in Borough's interest cause argued at the board counsel KIC's non-discriminatory tax from the the revenue "(tlhe for the unused intent of KIC that provided to pay to for services unknown, although [are] there space is still retaining in the reve exceeds KIC's strateglies that] in- long plans term governmental programs to its provide nue to hospital functions expansion of their clude[ ] members.16 Allowing spaces." KIC into those unused contrast, addressing Here, clear we are open tax-exempt flexibility to maintain stronger ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‍and tribal interests er and reorganization expansion or space for IHCIA, as expressed the ISDEAA the federal comports with health services congressional desire for explicit well as sovereignty and encouraging tribal policy of funding that to have the same Indian tribes and economic independence promoting tribal pro government would have to the federal development. Striking services. the balance vide health constitute the other interests The state thus competing interеsts these between Ramah, analysis. In balancing half of the Equalization. difficultthan Board more merely the collection interest was the state congressional desire for Given no to revenue; provided services the state funding, equal to have the obstacle tribes the reservat being on by allowing the school constructed presented goal that could be this was determined ion.9 The Court spaces in a Borough taxation of unused imposed justify the burdens policy expressed insufficient facility, and the health care Here, providing govern ambiguities the tax.10 KGB Petroleum Cotton building. The concerning the KIC interests functions to mental provision of be resolved favor of accurately compares this from taxation should opinion tribe,17 the balance I would concludethat Equalization those in Board services to plan- Ramah, participation of Indians in the maximum 102 S.Ct. 3394. U.S. at services."). ning management of those KIC Imposing case will result in the tax in this 8. - Ramah, at 102 S.Ct. 3394. $12,462.12 provide having medical ser less compatible with seem effect does not vices. This 10. Id. at 102S.Ct. 3394. ISDEAA, intent, enacting to see Congress's operating under self-determination those 11. 666 P.2d 1015 the sаme amount would receive contracts government if one funding the federal as would (2001); § P.2d at 1018. 12. 25 U.S.C. providing departments was still the services of its addition, imposing question. a tax on KIC at 1019. 13. 666 P.2d decided to use in the that it could have may foreclose that well future for clinic Id. at 1022. creating generate possibility by present need to space. This effect seems con revenue from at 1023. Id. in the IH- interest, evident to the federal trary See, CIA, e.g., care. promoting Indian health ("A 1601(b) (2001) major Id. national § 25 U.S.C. provide quanti goal United States is Mexico, per Corp. v. New ty quality which will 17. Cotton Petrоleum of health services 1698, 104 LEd.2d 209 to be raised to mit the health status of Indians encourage highest possible and to level Bills, O'Malley, and tribal inter- Eschin, the federal tips in favor of Mike Jim Joe exemption. O'Malley, Markel, Berg, thus Bill ests-and Gordon Floyd Newkirk, Horst, Karl Robert flexibility granted the KIC should Pelky, Plymire, Blackwell, Robert Don space in unused its maintain some Ziemelis, Randy Whitehorn, Valda Con sacrificing its tax- building without services Whitehorn, Bishop, nie Al Willie Hans According spaces.18 those exempt status for bertson, Sampson, Arno, Bill Mike Allen deci ly, I affirm the court's Rodney McLay, Englebretson, Jim - respectfully I therefore dissent sion. Jimmy Spencer, Spencer, Wright, Joe Ja opinion. the court's Amy Kinnard, Kinnard, Wright, son Sam Budge, Bellamy, Wise,

Paul Brian Rick Wise, Wise, Wise, Nathan John Jacob Marty Wise, Ellyson, Elly Jake Carol Leroy son, Sheldon, Cabana, Sr., Bill Larry Cabana, Cabana, Doris Dawn Ca bana, Connelly, Appellees. and Scott No. S-10418. PRICE, Jr., Appellant, E. Thomas Supreme Court of Alaska. Aug. Dillon, EASTHAM, "Spud" Mike Veldon Templeton, Turkington, Bruce Lorraine Dillon, Krumm, Bob Fe

Lee La Velle Willard,

nex, Fenex, Bruce Linda Carol Grebe,

Willard, Bullard, Butch Gordon Grebe, Overson, Eric Sam Mat

Diane Ray Kranich,

thews, Nancy Matthews, Alexander, Wythe, Sue Alex

Eilene Jack

ander, Alexander, Alexander, Rick Reed Sanders, Sanders, Shirley Greg

Dave Lloyd Moore, Penny

McCullough, - - Tammy Hagan, Moore, Hagan, Chuck Mitchell, Mitchell, Ben Ronnie

Kate

Morrison, Hrenchir, Mike Hren Barb Weber, Weber,

chir, Rita Bob Sim Gus Jacobs,

coe, Jacobs, Mark Barb Sharon

Thompson, Thompson, Rick Fred - Thompson, ‍‌‌‌​‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​​​​​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌​‌‌​​‌‍Thompson, Mike De Connie Weber,

vaney, Anderson, Rick Dave Terry Robl, Fisk, Robl, Toras

Mark Boone, George Boone, Marasha

Dave temporarily exempt purpose Am., vacant becomes Catholic Dist. Columbia v. Univ. of Cf. (D.C.1979) ("A exempt A.2d school or unused it loses its status is nonsensical University Catholic must have some flexi Way size of impractical application."); United bility operation its status its Douglas County Equaliza- Bd. the Midlands v. elects, merely should not be disturbed tion, 215 Neb. 337 N.W.2d classroom, given period, given not to use a (''The unusual facts here are similar to the nоt of a or other build or dormitory, portion hospi- rooms in a charitable situation of unused ..."); ing. Dep't Our Savior Lutheran Church v. dormitory tal of an educational institu- Revenue, App.3d Ill. 150 Ill.Dec. organization qualified ac- Oftentimes a tion. (1990) ("We do not think 562 N.E.2d building space quires reasonable or maintains vacancy temporary use of a that mere or lack of occupancy exempt pur- anticipation for an of full exempt parcel proper portion of an otherwise con- pose but cannot do so because of economic ty portion taxable. To renders that hold reasons."). legitimate or other ditions portion otherwise used for when a of a

Case Details

Case Name: Ketchikan Gateway Borough v. Ketchikan Indian Corp.

Court Name: Alaska Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 15, 2003

Citation: 75 P.3d 1042

Docket Number: S-10332

Court Abbreviation: Alaska