*1 '524 374
5% from of written demand for date payment plaintiff. March 1960. Costs to amount, and J., C. Black, Kelly,
Kavanagh, Souris, and JJ., concurred. Smith, O’Hara, Adams, v. STATE OAKWOOD HOSPITAL CORPORATION TAX COMMISSION. Taxation—Exemption Property—Nonprofit Hos- General 1. pital. hospital purposes
Nonprofit hospital’s property used general for general exempt property tax law from taxation under the (CLS 1961, 211.7). § Physicians Same—Exemption—Residences for and Interns on 2. Hospital Property. Occupancy hospital-owned physicians 6 resident and families, on same 33-acre tract as interns and their located held, nonprofit to be owned further- purposes for whieh was in- ance of occupancy being to the use corporated, incidental such (CLS hospital purposes operation entire of the 1961, 211.7). § Physicians Same—Exemption—Residences Interns 3. Hospital Property—Rent. on occupying interns Payment resident of rental preclude does not such hospital-owned property houses on taxation, being exempt where such use [5] [1] [2, [4] 51 Am 14 Am Am Am Jur, Jur, Jur, Jur, References Taxation Taxation Costs 91. Taxation § §§ 633. § 638. Points in Headnotes Tax Comm. v. 1965] Oakwood nonprofit operation also located to is incidental necessary built as accessories hos- premises, on the 33-acre the full- to obtain pital provide facilities order persons, not professionally trained time services *2 average operating produce income, and maintenance ex- 211.7). exceeding (CLS'1961, penses greatly rent § op Same—Exemption—Strict Statutes. Construction 4. strictly exemptions are to that tax The rule construed determining application the rule generally applied but property not specific a court must overlook the organized nonprofit corporation and see owner was which by held it was used incidental whether 1961, 211.7). (CLS § Exemption Besi- 5. Costs—Public Question—Tax dences. appeal on tax commis- No are allowed order State costs upon upholding assessment and taxation of sion by hospital furnishing than residences for full- at less cost interns, publie question being a time resident (CLS 1961, 211.7). involved J., dissenting. Adams, Tax from the State Commission. Michigan Appeal 8,1964. (Calendar No. Dock October Submitted et No. Decided 50,709.) February the Oak- by Tax Commission Appeal the State a Michigan nonprofit Hospital Corporation, wood from an made -corporation, City assessment affirmed. Plaintiff ap- of Dearborn. Assessment Reversed. peals.
McClintock, Fulton, (Stan- Donovan & Waterman H, Fulton, of ley counsel), plaintiff. Kelley, General,
Frank J. James R. Attorney Carl Holbrook General, T. Ramsey, Acting Solicitor Dexter, .and William D. Assistant Gen- Attorneys eral, for defendant commission. ' Michigan
Ralph Guy, Corporation Jr., Carl Counsel, B. City Corporation Garlow, Counsel, P. Assistant Dearborn. nonprofit corporation a J. Plaintiff is Dethmers, operates which a owns and located city appeals the defendant It an of Dearborn. from order of' up- tax commission placed by held portion ing tax assessment on plaintiff’s on which 6 dwell- city’s houses are located. The had assessment been confirmed board review and appealed therefrom to defendant commission. incorporated following pur-
Plaintiff was poses : to
with, incidental to the care of *3 pital other services as are or make available quire, (cid:127)“(a) “To establish, build, own, lease or otherwise ac- n or maintain, sick, hospitals engage [*] [*] afflicted,infirm or [*] in scientific research and educational foregoing equip, therein necessary State and in connection-there- (cid:127) operate such of injured persons; Michigan; or professional desirable for general to furnish and, hos- and the or other activities which to are related and are'de- signed promote general improve to and the and welfare. “(.b) corporation organized This and shall be operated exclusively for charitable, scientific and purposes nonprofit corporation. educational aas It purpose engage to, its and it shall in not, ac- involving designed gain pécuniary tivities or profit any of its members or other individual or organization. part earnings No of its net shall inure any to the member, benefit trustee, or in- officer dividual. It shall not be cor- poration- engage carrying to, and it shall not, on propaganda attempting or otherwise to influence legislation.” Tax Comm. 33 acres On consists of estate Plaintiff’s The hospital located. are facilities its houses.are hospital for are and have been and near physicians and dwelling for the resident employed full time families and their interns hospital. hospital paid them the the salaries Prom per deducting retaining month and $100 has been as occupancy charge a The of house. houses for produce by plaintiff income for to built were not hospital, provide housing solely near to order physicians the resident interns for availability hospital at all to the whose services times and operation on to short notice essential regulatory and to accreditation its necessary built to be The were houses authorities. hospital. an accessories There has been acute shortage years, in Dearborn, for number of housing vicinity the hos- such pital. hospital very of them near to it. The Some must live housing furnishing for interns
found necessary in at was order to obtain their services utility all. services and The furnishes average operat- these at an maintenance for ing per expense to it of month. The about $150 occupants only helps defray, made, charge part, hospital’s expense operating and main- taining employees. employs It rang- physicians interns, several other resident ing number, 28 in whom it leases from to houses from the and then rents them those owners other on same interns terms occupants Only as to the conditions said houses. having 1 such rented is in become Dearborn, house *4 necessary go acquire city what was outside the needed. dispute is kind There no that of
n opera- engaged an institution kind Michigan Reports. [Feb_ property purpose- which causes for that tion used exempt only dispute to be from taxation. The re- portion plaintiff’s lates to that 33-aere on the 6 site which houses are located. Plaintiff sets question forth in its brief as its statement of the appeal, following: in' involved this portion Michigan “Is that of a nonprofit corporation, engaged public- operating general hospital, occupied by which is and used solely for the medical internes employed and resident who are full-time- hospital, including exempt families, their provisions Michigan from taxation under the of the general property act as tax amended? “The State tax commission answered' ‘No’. “Appellant contends that it should answered ‘Yes’.” provisions
The material of section of Michi- gan general property question (PA tax act in 1893,. amended), (Stat No 1961, 211.7 Ann CLS 7.7), Supp § 1961 Cum are as follows: following property exempt “Sec. 7. The shall be * * * from taxation: “Fourth, Such real estate as shall be owned occupied by library, benevolent, charitable, educa- * * * incorporated tional or scientific institutions buildings under the other laws this State with the occupied by solely while thereon them they incorporated. for which were * ** buildings Also real with the estate, other- by any thereon, owned and non- profit trust purposes.”
It
the contention of defendant
commission
of the
not,
6 houses are
Dearborn
quoted
meaning
within the terms and
statu-
solely
tory exemption, occupied
plaintiff’s
lessees
*5
529
Tax
v.
Comm.
plaintiff
incorpo-
purposes
was
for which
purposes.
or
nor
for
rated
used
disputes.
plaintiff
This
n
distinguish
to
the factual situa-
seeks
Defendant
by plaintiff
that in cases cited
for its
from
tion here
position,
Rapids,
Academy City
notably
Grand
Webb
v.
building
In that
in
plies purposes occupation combined with incorporation.” itsof says here not used for Defendant houses incorporated, name was ly operate hospital, only are used but instead purposes. They point fact that for residential exemption, upholding Webb this Court, quoted approval (footnote with from 21 LRA 171 NS Spillers, State, Johnston, under the ex rel. case 1083]), following: [113 214 Mo 656 SW statutory exemption taxation of “That the exclusively for school educational destroyed by propri- fact that is not persons with the etors, teachers, or other connected building, such residence reside in the when .school building merely therein incidental the use aas school.”
53.0 emphasize They of the word “inciden- above use occupancy here of the tal” in and insist Webb, merely by the an incidental doctors was hospital purposes was the ex- to their use for put. clusive use to which the houses were The occupation then mentions that Webb resi- *6 building proper, inwas the school but would dents distinguish the instant case in that here the doctors living hospital building proper in in not are stretching It detached houses. would to be seem legal breaking point, technicalities to the war- by Webb, turn on whether ranted make decision dwellings part separate are a of, to, attached hospital building proper. from the doctors with interns and resident view, In our unwilling acquire to come unless fur- and hard to hospital, housing by and nearness of such nished being important dwellings to make doctors and hospital upon immediately available interns housing in the notice, call or and other hurried short hospital being practically near the unavailable escaped purpose, that the houses for that it cannot by plaintiff occupied owned furtherance and purposes plaintiff in- "of for the for which was and corporated pur- and for poses. hospital facility, including The entire hospital building proper main and the houses Used together as these must be considered deter- are, mining all ofdt, well, whether combination and, divisibly, hospital purpose a and is used serves yes, say therefor. answer We answer applies as well as to the main building. occupancy by inAs the doctors Webb, and interns is incidental to the use of the entire operation and the thereof as such. 531' Tax Comm. v. State Association Bible Lake Gull In Conference plaintiff
Township was a Ross, 351 Mich organization a Bible which conducted charitable promote incorporated camp. study It was study gatherings of the Bible. On for the conduct its taxation, were exempted sought from to have estate, youth chapel which a was tabernacle and building concededly exempt, also a hotel employees, the association’s used lowship bathing .fel- picnic-area, bathhouse, docks, center, boat playground, et cetera. The associa- beach, camp- parking charged trailer facilities, tion rent attending cottages by people the con- sites, exempt all This held ference. Court quota- point following is the taxation. In here from tion opinion the trial court’s this Court cage: “ remaining therefore; decided, to be ‘The here involved is whether by solely for which *7 incorporated. Again the we must refer- it was page appearing- and set 635, 34 ALR at 634, in rule Memorial B. Smith General R. forth Auditor Hospital in it is 293 Mich wherein Association, (cid:127) . said; “ ‘ being property determining the is whether “In meaning the within to charitable devoted exemptions are'to rule tax the statute, of the applied, generally strictly with the is be construed specific a charter in the absence that, result property statutory provision, a char- owned no income, can a source of held as institution, itable charge although a escape fact that the taxation, against those who conferred, made for benefits way pay, the charitable in no detracts able to organization.” of an character n “ whether applying must determine rule we this ‘In question property as in plaintiff the holds the plaintiff re- that the It is true of income. source (cid:127) Michigan n ceives income from the nse which it makes of the property the manner in which it occupies by reason charges of the which it makes using attending conference and persons provided by plaintiff. facilities offered and How-' in ever, the true of the determining purpose plaintiff for owning and we maintaining must but rather be overlook, largely governed set forth its articles for its incorpora- tion. “ 'On reference thereto we it only find is not of the purpose plaintiff to conduct gatherings of the Bible, cetera, et but it also its study promote at gatherings. Looking the situation latter light of purpose, may be logically concluded that in order to obtain satisfactory attendance to its conference, plaintiff found it advisable to provide and necessary those with attending living accommodations, recreational facilities and all of the other offered by services and made possible through use occupancy of the land in question by plaintiff manner which they do occupy use and such land. The charges made for such services and facilities approximate the cost thereof to plaintiff, and the income derived therefrom should does not, opinion of this court, detract from the the. charitable ” character of the plaintiff organization.’ part hospital opera- The houses are used under Exemption tion and are incidental thereto. the statute applies.
. The order
defendant commission
upholding
and taxation of the
in dis
upon
assessment
costs,
aside and
No
pute is set
reversed.
- 1
involved.
being
*8
J.,
C.
Black,
Kavanagh,
Kelly,
Smith,
n O’Hara, JJ.,
J.
Dethmers,
concurred with
533
Tax
v. State
Comm.
(dissenting). This ease involves a claim
Adams, J.
exemption
statutory
property,
from real
of
taxes,
hy
opinion.
set forth
as
Justice
his
Dethmers
Joseph’s
City
St.
Detroit,
Church v.
189 Mich
408, 414, states:
exemption
“It
a cardinal rule
statutes—
unlike homestead statutes—should
receive
strict
Cooley
(2d ed), p
construction.
on Taxation
Saginaw,
inis
including
intention,
on the claimant to establish
emption.
erty
contrary,
#
“A
[*]
within the terms of the statute, the
favor of the
grant
[*]
East
in all cases of
" principles, long-established Keeping these in mind agree appellant entitled the I am unable to exemption. are the The facts an critical physi- employing a total of resident was housing providing for all 24. interns and cians and Housing hospital prem-' provided on the for was six a fence which are located These houses outside ises. They private, hospital grounds. are the surrounds ranch-type edge which on the neighbor- public in a residential fronts on a street residing in homes Children, of families these hood. attending, in the of Dearborn. schools community They parents enjoy all services and their and facilities. em- interns
The 18 resident other housing ployed'by fa- are furnished the purpose. for this rented cilities-which have been same the are the as The terms and conditions appears upon question. far six houses So occupying the record, or interns the doctors this houses hospital-premises same have the duties off’the - occupy responsibilities the six as those who and that are on the
premises. dwellings are al- The on a first-come-first-served basis. located hospital premises The whether on houses, occupied appellant any by are not used and off, appellant more than be said that uses could janitors, occupies private housing of its employees. pharmacists, other dietitians, or nurses, purview corporate pur- It is not within the poses inbe business. upon “occupancy,” emphasis “pur- “use,” This poses” origin has statute within which exemption. seeks to an In establish rele- part, vant it reads: following, property exempt . shall “The * **
taxation: Tax v. State Comm. “Fourth, real estate as shall he Such owned hy library, occupied benevolent, charitable, educa- * * * incorporated tional or scientificinstitutions buildings the laws of this with under occupied by other solely thereon while them they were incor- * * * porated. Also estate, with the build- ings and other thereon, owned and by any nonprofit *10 pub- trust and used for or purposes.” § lic health by 1961, CLS 211.7,as amended (Stat Supp 7.7). PA No 148 Ann 1963Cum As stated at the it is essential outset, that the plaintiff beyond establish a reasonable doubt the ability of the here to involved come within say the terms of the is, statute. There to the least, occupancy, pur- substantial doubt as to the use and pose, being put. to which these homes are Prior case law does to little remove that doubt. Academy City Rapids, Webb Grand 209 Mich of clearly distinguishable
523, is present from the case. In Webb there anwas incidental use school building enabling occupants residence, to carry out school and activities. “ grounds building, ‘The school school all of and. kept the recitation rooms are order Mr. and they early morning Webb; Mrs. are there to prepared have the rooms heated and for its students open; they when school shall the. do some of their instructing pupils evening; they in are there purpose; they during for that are there vacation purpose keeping putting times said building opening academy in condition for the of this n ” p at its next term.’ , ' in Gull Lake Bible Associa Likewise, Conference Township , tion v. Ross, 351 Mich 275: purpose plaintiff [was] “The of the to conduct gatherings study et cetera, but Bible, gatherings. promote such it is also its light latter
Looking at the situation may in order purpose, logically concluded it satisfactory conference, attendance to obtain necessary provide plaintiff it advisable found living recre- attending accommodations, with' those offered the other services all of ational facilities through by plaintiff possible the use made question by occupancy in the land.” of the land in they occupy do use and manner agree whether with Justice Dethmers I physically' the' attached to is prop- unimportant; important that the What is erty occupied by hospital “solely is neither they [it] [was] incor- for which were porated” “hospital nor is purposes.”
(cid:127) being statutory No costs, construction involved.. sit,. did
Souris, J., *11 v. SCOTT. OF FARMINGTON TOWNSHIP Equity—Injunction—Nuisance—Statutes. 1. grant injunction, may where an equity properly au A court (CL statute nuisance asserted reference abatable seq.). et 1948, 125.271 § [1] [3] [4] [5-7] [2] Am28 16 Am Jur Am Am Am Jur, Jur, Jur, Injunctions Jur, Zoning References 2d, Nuisances Nuisances Constitutional Law 239. § §§ for Points et [14] § § 46. seq. 150. § in Headnotes