*1 Ap CHURCH, OLD FASHION BAPTIST Plaintiff REVENUE, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF pellant, Respondents. al., et Defendants No. 83-166. Sept. Submitted 1983. Decided Nov. 1983.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 1983. *2 plaintiff argued, Butte, and John Leslie Hamner appellant.
Larry argued, Jr., Brown, Helena, Lewis G. R. Schuster respondents. Butte, for defendants and opinion CHIEF HASWELL delivered the
MR. JUSTICE Court. of the Baptist appeals Bow from a Silver Fashion Church
Old disallowing judgment its claimed District Court part exemptions. property reverse We affirm and proceedings. part, for further and remand grant July to lots 23,1975, a deed the Church recorded
On day 10-16 in near On the same a notice a subdivision Butte. purchasers was the Church for lots interest recorded All
6-9 in same lots surrounded one subdivision.
fence. building 10-11, a used as a church school there place worship. There is house on lot 14 used as
and a leading parsonage. 6, 7, A road to the church crosses lots portions of lots as well as the rest of and 9. Other lots, members, are used recreational activities unoccupied unimproved. backstop but are and softball Gary Miller, has been erected on one of the lots. Reverend property pur- church, of the testified that the usage chased for all convenience youth ministry the school fellowship.
services and (DOR) The Montana of Revenue However, lots 10-16 denied, for lots 6-9 was taxes thereon were as- subsequent years. sessed for and all *3 delinquent
Since taxes were on lots Lee MacDonald assignment proper and, took on a tax those lots no- without Church, tice to the deed recorded obtained a tax and the quitclaimed deed. On March MacDonald his inter- May in est lots 6-9 to James Walters recorded deed. Marjorie
22, 1980, the Church recorded its deed from No- land for lots 6-9.
There is some that evidence MacDonald or Walters visited reconvey $6,000 the of the Church and to demanded alleged acquired by their interest tax deed. There is also evidence that of were threats ouster made. MacDonald requested would not clear title as the Church. Thereaf- quiet ter, the Church filed this action to title.
The District found the Church the Court that record question owner all of lots and voided the tax deed. Fur- granted exemption ther, it lots and con- cluding reasonably necessary not that the other lots were buildings. Also, for the convenient use of the church the ingress egress court determined that and could be achieved appeal lots 6-9. This means other than the road on followed. issues our consideration:
The Church raises two for (1) exemption, Is the Church to as a entitled an institution, church surrounding buildings? on all lots the
(2) Did the Court act without disal- District by the lowing
Revenue? the surrounding that the land
The Church contends reasonably necessary for convenient use buildings church is thus, to an Church entitled buildings; the church the 15-6-201(l)(b), MCA. The land exemption under section ministries, Church, exclusively school the the youth Ingress egress ministries religious purposes. 6, 7, 8,
accomplished by road which is on prop- he been on the DOR witness testified that had activity. Church Consequently, but erty twice saw re- Church’s evidence argues, DOR failed to contradict use of garding the argues legislative Church also that enactment necessary for the conven- exemption adjacent lands liberally con- intent buildings
ient use of indicates an exemption strue the statute. must be
DOR asserts that the tax statutes taxa- exemptions and favor of against construed but must ex- implied tion. A tax cannot be clear, pressed in unambiguous language. church, land on recognizes parsonage
DOR However, tax. they sit is MCA, 15-6-201, land fall under section adjacent does not use of the it convenient reasonably is not were that all of the lots buildings. points DOR out *4 vacant, activity was ever witnessed unimproved and an ex- of construction property. on Under rules strict emption cannot be such es- institutions are exemptions religious tax
Property
455 VIII, 5, 1972 Montana Con- Section tablished Art.
stitution, part: which reads exempt from taxation: (1) exemptions. legislature may The
“Property “ ...
“(b) charity, hospitals purely public Institutions of private corporate or places of not used or held for burial worship, profit, places religious actual purposes. exclusively for educational
(c) Any property.” other classes of 15-6-201(l)(b), MCA, provides:
Section (1) “Exempt categories. following categories prop- of erty are from taxation:
“...
“(b) buildings, they occupy with the land and furnishings therein, religious owned a church and used for actual worship or clergy, together adja- for residences of the with reasonably necessary cent land for convenient use of such buildings;”
Generally, property
insti
tutions
against
construed
the claimant. 71
Taxation,
688; Grace,
State and Local
Am.Jur.
381 at
§
County
Inc. v. Board
Comm.
(N.M.App.1981),
639 P.2d
of
Homes,
Baptist
Gray
Yakima First
Inc. v.
69;
(1973),
82
Board
Publication
295,
243;
Wash.2d
510 P.2d
(1964),
Oregon
Methodist Church v.
State Tax Commission
65,
212;
also,
Or.
396 P.2d
see
other cases cited
in Flathead Lake
1064,
A.L.R.2d
1065. This Court so held
Camp
Methodist
v. Webb
(1965),
565,
Mont.
Town
(1926),
Cascade v. Cascade
citing
Cruse v. Fischl
P.
55 Mont.
However, Flathead Lake
recognized
that each case must be viewed from a realistic quoting language from a New York court: “ must, determinations, place ‘We as in judicial all other in juxtaposition judicial interpretation. the two extremes of policy the one hand is the of strict construction *5 upon exemption. [Citing cases.] frowns On the other hand, further innocent collateral activities essential to the purposes corporation ance true should not genuineness purposes nor to blind the court to the of those sincerity accomplishment.’ [Citing cases.] of their actual Reuling, 797] v. [Buffalo Turn Verein 155 Misc. 281 N.Y.S. page 573,
545 at
546.” Mont. at
We construe roadway. tion for the actual land that is the access brought It was argument topogra out oral that because of the th¿ phy surrounding ingress egress land, can be by Wynne road, achieved the church access not Avenue This determined the District Court. access ingress 7,6, 8, crosses lots and 9. We find that roads for egress certainly meaning “adjacent are within the land necessary reasonably [church] of such for convenient use 15-6-201(l)(b), buildings,” MCA. Access to stated section buildings convenient use of such church buildings. roadway exempt only sits,
We the land on which the exemp adhering policy of tax to the of strict construction swung construc tion statutes. balance is toward strict interpretation permissive since the tion rather than a more undeveloped largely use thereof is not and the clearly Hence, it is difficult to as evident nor documented. furtherance of
certain whether such use is essential to the holding purposes lim the true of the Church. Our other ited to the facts of this case and does not foreclose asserting tax institutions from property adjacent buildings. to ju- Court had no
The Church also asserts that the District exemptions on lots ex- risdiction to remove empted by exempt of those lots was DOR. The tax status challenge litigation did not not and DOR involved such status. argues lots was raised status of the
DOR subject litigation. to the Church and thus became grant Court does not have District pleadings presented un relief outside of the issues questions parties stipulate less the that other considered proof. pleadings Hel or to the amended to conform (1973), 13, ler v. Osburnsen Na 162 Mont. (1948), Surety Corp.
tional v. Kruse (1927), 317;
P.2d Welch v. All Persons
78 Mont.
254 P.
Goldberg
179;
v.
72 Mont.
We hold the District Court had no to re exempt originally granted by move the In status DOR. this original quiet 6, 7, 8, case the action title on lots was 9, as the tax deed clouded the Church’s title. As alleged mentioned, the Church that the tax deed was void delinquency property since no occurred should because exempt. Therefore, have been tax the issues of action through exemption granted embraced lots 6 9. The on lots through acknowledged in DOR was its answer. prayer judgment specifically DOR’s for non asked that the exempt subsequent through status and on lots 6 assessment through 9 be affirmed. Lots 10 mentioned. Fi- 16 were not nally, application prohibition the Church’s for a writ of through 9, dealt with the tax on lots 6 not lots assessment through 16. regarding pleadings The above facts that the indicate through brought status of lots 10 16 was never litigation. Rather, into this the essence of the action was validity depended, part, of the tax in on the tax deed which through Consequently, status of lots 6 9. the District Court removing acted without status through of lots 10 judgment through
The is reversed as to lots 10 16. The judgment through toas lots 6 9 is vacated and remanded to physical actual, the District Court determination of the exemption, dimensions of the access acquisition. would refer back to time of The remainder of judgment is affirmed. HARRISON, GULBRANDSON, MR. JUSTICES SHEA, WEBER and and THE HONORABLE JOHN M.
McCARVEL, JUDGE,* DISTRICT concur.
*Sitting place of MR. JUSTICE MORRISON. dissenting: SHEEHY,
MR. JUSTICE improper I dissent this and unworkable decision re- lating to the of church-related Gary majority Miller,
The admit that Rev. property purchased church, testified that the for conve- usage nience and and all of the was used youth ministry school services fellowship. majority ignored language determining have portion that a of the church must taxed. *7 testimony question:
This is the which bears you during I “Q. believe that testified the course of a di- particular rect were used for examination that those picnics, hayrides, tobogganing sort, of that and activities (Rev. Miller) ministries, Yes, that correct? A. related to our youth ministry ministries, our our school . . .
“... you “THE have baseball COURT: You have a road and a 6, 7, a in all three or diamond on and 8 and 9. There is four.
“THE The road has to be on all of them but WITNESS: everyday.” maybe 6. That’s not vacant. It’s used
459 Department employee contrast, In of Revenue testified premises day twice, that he a had been on not on going on, when church or school activities were and that he knowledge any had direct as kind to the use of respect ownership. lots with to the church through through
Lots and lots 16 are all used as unit, one and are enclosed in a common fence. There is a through baseball diamond located on lots aswell roadway majority which the have seen fit to portion
taxation. The evidence is that the recreational through ministry. lots 9 in connection with the school This case should be Flathead Lake Method controlled Camp Webb, ist v. Correan M. Treasurer In case, 399 P.2d this Court held portion that that purposes of church used for recreational pur
in connection with its educational poses was entitled to I from taxes. see no differ existing particularly here, ence the situation where the testimony “everyday” indicates that the connection with the of the church. dangerous precedent.
This case sets a Now all church properties Department Revenue, will be examined portions properties and those of their which are not in ac- days may tive use on the two of Revenue subject come to observe will be to taxation. question
The real like cases this should be whether the attempting gain church is an for more land purposes. than for its such exists No situation I here. therefore dissent.