01/23/2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ANALYSIS the property is We need address only Bethesda's first assignment of error. used exclusively for religious, educational, charitable, or The question presented is whether the primary or dominant cemetery purposes. The property need not be used solely use of Cambridge Court is for charitable purposes.Whether for one of the four categories of exempt use, but may be Bethesda is a charitable organization as required in § used for a combination of the exempt uses.For purposes of 77-202(I)(c) is not before us. The status of Bethesda as a this exemption, the term exclusive use shall mean the charitable organization was not a contested issue before the predominant or primary use of the property as opposed to Board and was not an issue contested by the parties. The incidental use. The exemption will not be lost if the parties agreed that Bethesda is a charitable organization and property is used in an incidental manner that is not one or that the property is owned by a charitable organization. more of the exempt uses. Since the issue was not presented to the Board,it could not be presented to TERC, and TERC had no power to reach See 350 Neb.Admin.Code,ch.40,§005.03(1999). the issue sua sponte. The appeal is restricted to questions raised before the Board.TERC has no authority to consider The use of the property establishes whether it is exempt. questions not raised before a county board of equalization. See §005.03B(3). As used in §77-202(1)(c), the term Arcadian Fertilizer v.Sarpy Cry.Bd of Equal.,7 Neb.App. "exclusively"meant that "the primary or dominant use of 499,583 N.W.2d 353(1998). - the property,and not an incidental use,[was]controlling in determining whether a property [was] exempt from In order for property to be exempt from taxation, a taxation." Pittman v.Sarpy Cry. Bd. of Equal., 258 Neb. claimant must prove 390,401,603 N.W.2d 447,455(1999).A tax exemption for charitable use is allowed because those exemptions"benefit (1) that the subject property is owned by a charitable, the public generally and the organization performs services educational,religious,or cemetery organization;(2)that the which the state is relieved pro tanto from performing." subject property is not being used for financial gain or United Way v.Douglas Co. 13d. of Equal., 215 Neb. 1, 3, profit to the owner or user,and(3)that the subject property 337 N.W.2d 103, 105 (1983). "[E]xclusive use means the is being used exclusively for charitable, educational, primary or dominant use of property, as opposed to religious,or cemetery purposes.... incidental use."Neb. Unit.Meth Ch. v.Scotts Bluff Cry.Bd ofEquol., 243 Neb.412,416,499 N.W.2d 543,547(1993). (Citation omitted.) Ev.Lath. Soc. v.Buffalo Cty. Bd. of Equal., 230 Neb. 135, 139-40, 430 N.W.2d 502, 505 TERC found that Cambridge Court was not used (1988). exclusively for charitable purposes, in part, because Medicaid waiver program residents make up only 17 State law and regulations adopted by the Nebraska percent of the residents.It concluded that the record did not Department of Property Assessment and Taxation specify support a finding that housing Medicaid waiver program an additional two tests which must be satisfied in order to residents relieved the state or federal government of any qualify for an exemption: the property cannot be used for burden because Cambridge Court was reimbursed, at a the sale of alcoholic liquors for more than 20 hours per maximum, $1,750 per month to house each Medicaid week and the property cannot be owned or used by an resident.The facility had previously been certified for the organization which discriminates in membership or Medicaid waiver program when it was owned by a employment based on race, color,or national origin. See,§ for-profit corporation.TERC found that Bethesda's fees are 77-202(1)(c); 350 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 40, § 005.01 not moderate and (1999). Those two tests are not before us. No questions have been raised concerning whether Bethesda sells alcohol Page 460 on the property, whether it practices any kind of discrimination, or whether it is used for financial gain or that the facility is in direct competition with a for-profit [640 N.W.2d 403] profit of the owner. In its brief, the assisted living facility. Board notes that its sole TERC found that assisted living facilities have minimal Page 459 medical education or training requirements for employees and concluded that while Cambridge Court met the dispute concerns whether the property is used exclusively definitions of an assisted living facility and a health care for a charitable purpose. facility under state law,"it [did] not provide'medical care' (as that term is defined under state law)."An assisted living A Department of Property Assessment and Taxation facility provides "'accommodation,board, and an array of regulation provides that an exemption is available only if services for assistance with or provision of personal care,