*1 Philadelphia DeAngelo, Appellant, v. Transportation Co. April
Argued C. 1968. Before Jones, O’Brien and Roberts, Eagen, Cohen, him Charleston & Marie Post, Charleston, appellant. appellee. I.
Daniel Murphy, July 1, 1968: Per Curiam, Judgment entered; on the verdict has been appeal quashed. be must hence, part took no in the Justice Musmanno con- sideration or decision of this case. Exemption
Vanguard School Tax Case. *2 Argued May Before Mus- C. manno, O’Beien Jones, Cohen, and Eagen, Roberts, H. him Carter,
J. B. with Peter J. Hearn, Hulee, T. James A. Rocap, Edward Moore, and Pepper, Hamilton appellant. & Seheets, him Rogers,
Theodore 0. Susan P. Windle, appellee. & Rogers 0}Neill, 1968: July Musmanno, Mr. Justice attending School children marks County that shadowland live
Chester They not are normal or abnormal. them neither as to them yet come of the world the sounds deaf, interpreted being incapable frequently distorted and fog they en- tones; blind, their true they velops vision; before their what comes much of paths they over which are not lame but stumble skip merrily boys girls soundly-developed mishap. without guidance if
Thus need assistance and acquire capacity are to and confidence which will up capable grow enable them to become citizens *3 community the nation and will state, blessings enjoy liberty live to the of this land of equal opportunity. Vanguard School is dedicated overcoming their deficiencies. The curriculum is designed equip train and so these chil- unfortunate day dren so that one the sun will shine on a world “socially where no one will refer to them as and emo- tionally unstable.” founding
Generous benefactors contributed toward maintaining Vanguard gifts the School, their equal required operate cannot sums the such in- an parents may stitution end to the eventually see healthy, companionable in their child the person social, they had envisioned before his or her birth. the Thus, parents-pay per tuition the amount of child $3000 per Pennsylvania Department annum. The of Public appropriation under authorization by Instruction, Assembly the General renders aid in the sum of $1500 per compensation child. The for instructors is modest. operated non-profit The school a basis. In view of of the nature institution and the circumstances exemption here asked for related, from taxes for real This estate. was denied County Chester On for the Assessment and Revision of Taxes. Board re- pleas the court of common affirmed the appeal then appealed to this Court. jection. Vanguard of the Constitution Article Pennsylvania IX, §1 “The General provides: Assembly general laws, may, by from taxation exempt public public used for property places actual religious places purposes, worship, burial not used or held for private corporate or profit, institutions of purely charity.” In pursuance provision Constitutional General enacted Assembly of May 1943, law P. L. 72 P.S. amended, §202 §5453.202 exempts from local taxation: “all univer- hospitals, sities, colleges, seminaries, associations academies, institutions of learning, benevolence . charity . . en- dowed and maintained by public or private . .
The Court of Common Pleas of Chester af- County, ter discussing the moneys received by said: Vanguard, “Vanguard’s operation is not a losing proposition so far as this record would indicate. There is no showing upon it that it costs more to educate its pupils than pupils and the public paying that education.”
Thus the court below concluded that Vanguard was not a “purely charity.”
But this Court has held that the acceptance of fees does itself deprive an institution of the designa *4 tion of public “purely if charity,” it qualifies in other respects. In the Hill School Tax Exemption Case, Pa. we said 21, 27, “A that, purely public does not cease to be such where it receives some payment for its services.” This rule was cited with approval in the case of Presbyterian Homes Tax Exemption Case, 428 Pa. involved residents in a home for the It aged. was urged by the local taxing authorities in that case that the Home was subject to taxation be the cause of many paid residents for their maintenance. pointed This Court out that there are certain obliga- it name, of the worthy a government tions “in the humanity of name in the to assume is bound Justice Chief welfare.” public and interest public “The 151: p. at said for the Court, speaking incapacitated completely not those who even elderly, and mental and from loneliness, suffer physically, they grow to increase tend infirmities which physical and home the family leave children and their older each With or die. away move contemporaries their less able less and become they usually passing year, the including of problems life, day-to-day with the cope maintenance their proper of their homes, management nourish- their adequate at times, and even, and support, of illness in and dread fear and often live ment; or possible poverty, disability or of some physical of them- take care inability adequately of just plain and in the interest It certainly selves. is and other facilities be established that homes welfare anxieties, to relieve these worries maintained in- this well-known sufferings, these fears for themselves.” of care aged adequately the ability opposite case are at the this beneficiaries scale but of the need care chronological end superannuated manner that the disabled re the same identical Litigation involving attention. quire Court the came before this case Gilden school 484. At 406 Pa. time the school Appeal, was Main Line Educational Center. known as the We there “The motif of 490: the Center p. at [referring said School)prior to the 1963 name change] mind, medico-therapeutic education except insofar as academic tutoring treatment reaches None processes. mental children attending an intelligence demonstrated quotient the Center less the children do need Nonetheless, special than in taken have to be They by the hand struction. and led paths along carefully knowledge, teacher *5 trip vigilant constantly fall the tot does pits or feel because and snares he cannot see into the instability. instability The is not serious of emotional presents of such a character that it a block it is but by regular teaching . normal education methods .. to hospitals and sanitaria located “There valley tragedy been care for children who have paralysis ail- down cerebral and other dread struck top sys- ments. the hill is At school physically mentally Half tem for normal children. way up the hill find we the Center devoted to those potentialities children who have the to become excel- neglected might lent citizens but who, and forsaken, well tumble down the hill into the for the institutions hopelessly handicapped. Center trains its children climb the hill to the normal schools where will places take their no one will ever know that precipice had ever skirted the of disaster.” appellee Exemp- the Woods cites Schools Tax tion support position, 406 Pa. Case, its the situation in Woods Schools is different from the by Vanguard one at bar. The fees received are not used purpose any payment for other than fide bona expenses operating improvement expan- and for appellee sion of its facilities. The admitted in the court below that no one connected with the school paid being excessively. receipts surpass If the expenditures, private the excess inures to no benefit operations but remains for the use of the school in expansion program. argued The school has well receipts that to given hold that because the period for a expenditures exceed the exemption nullifies the tax penalize efficiency be to would and to cause the school’s eligibility exemption vary year year.
The lower court said that the School “has taxpayers’ any not relieved the appreciable burden to degree.” Indies In West Mission Appeal, 387 Pa. 534, *6 argument tbe declared unreasonable Court from relief only institution’s of an measure
that the gov- by it relieves measure is the tax burdens acceptance of responsibilities: “Strict of its ernment relief only institution’s of an measure that the the idea by it the measure be burdens would tax responsibilities, government would its of relieved the require taxing agencies an to make and the courts complex absurdly to the effectiveness determination as giving charity that the is from its burdens of the relief prior determining government, the extent to to the exemption. every We are unaware tax charitable required having ever such determination.” a Vanguard qualifies all criteria School under exemption. purely charity tax a entitled to engaged of chil- It is in the assistance and instruction learning regardless or dren disabilities difficulties, property religion, its or creed; color none of sex, receipts to other is devoted use than such assistance it is instruction; devoted a charitable private profit. use without
Order reversed.
Dissenting Mr. Justice Cohen: The record discloses that the School in operation Pennsylvania collected in tuition granted scholarship amount of It $1,300,000. aid in negligible percentage amount of $30,000. scholarship aid fees collected for tuition amounts I cannot conceive an institution which 2.2%. profit charging made after $80,000 $50,000 as depreciation expense only expended an $30,000 scholarship can charity be held to aid, be a entitled to tax relief. purely public it is true
While that a charity does to be payment not cease such where it receives some my opinion, its services, it however, does cease to to tax relief when it receives a entitled be 98% rendered. The cash flow ($80,000 for services payment rep- depreciation) profit $130,000 $50,000 on the tuition even profit resents a net collected, 10% private after the of salaries former owners payment of the school. Eagen in this joins opinion. Justice dissenting Appellant, v.
Commonwealth ex rel. Goldsmith, *7 Myers. April Argued Before C. Mus- Jones, manno, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts,