Zion Church of the Foursquare Gospel, Inc. d/b/a New Hope Chapel v. Board of Assessors of the Town of Hanson (December 20, 2001)

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

APPELLATE TAX BOARD



ZION CHURCH OF THE				THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS
FOURSQUARE GOSPEL, INC.		v.	OF THE TOWN OF HANSON     
d/b/a NEW HOPE CHAPEL 			     

Docket Nos.: F256012 (FY 2000)
 		   F259012 (FY 2001)	Promulgated:
							December 20, 2001								

	
	These are appeals under the formal procedure pursuant to G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65 from the refusal of the appellee to grant an exemption under G.L. c. 59, § 5,    cl. 11, and accordingly, abate real estate taxes assessed under G.L. c. 59, § 38 for fiscal years 2000 and 2001.  
	Commissioner Egan heard these appeals.  Chairman Burns and Commissioners Scharaffa, Gorton, and Rose joined her in the decisions for the appellant.
	These findings of fact and report are made pursuant to a request by the appellee under G.L. c. 58A, § 13 and 8.31 CMR 1.32.

	Donna W. Loomis, Esq. for the appellant.
	Richard Bowen, Esq. for the appellee.  

FINDINGS OF FACT AND REPORT
	On January 1, 1999 and January 1, 2000, the appellant, Zion Church of the Foursquare Gospel, Inc. d/b/a New Hope Chapel ("New Hope Chapel"), was the assessed owner of a parcel of land improved with a single family home located at 38 Highland Terrace in Hanson ("subject property" or "property").  For fiscal year 2000, the Board of Assessors of the Town of Hanson ("Assessors") valued the property at $161,400 and assessed a tax, at the rate of $16.45 per $1,000, in the amount of $2,655.03.  For fiscal year 2001, the Assessors valued the property at $171,100 and assessed a tax, at the rate of $16.43 per $1,000, in the amount of $2,811.17.  In previous years, the Assessors had considered the subject property exempt from taxation under G.L. c. 59, § 5, cl. 11, as a parsonage.  
	New Hope Chapel timely filed its fiscal year 2000 and 2001 applications for abatement with the Assessors on November 2, 1999 and Monday, November 6, 2000, respectively, claiming that the property was still exempt as a parsonage under G.L. c. 59, § 5, cl. 11.  Consequently, New Hope Chapel did not contest the value placed on the property by the Assessors, but instead challenged the Assessors' denial of the property's exempt status.  The Assessors denied the fiscal year 2000 application on January 25, 2000 and denied the fiscal year 2001 application on January 30, 2001.  New Hope Chapel seasonably appealed to the Appellate Tax Board ("Board") on April 25, 2000 and March 28, 2001, respectively, within three months of the denials.  G.L. c. 59, §§ 64 and 65.  On this basis, the Board found and ruled that it had jurisdiction over both of these appeals.  
	Based on the testimony of New Hope Chapel's sole witness, Reverend David G. Wilson, and the exhibits introduced into evidence, the Board made the following findings of fact.  Rev. Wilson was the senior pastor of New Hope Chapel, a church within the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel ("Foursquare Gospel" or "Church") located in Rockland, Massachusetts.  During the relevant time period, New Hope Chapel had an active congregation of approximately 350 people from the surrounding area.  The only residential property owned by New Hope Chapel during the fiscal years at issue was the subject property.  In previous years, senior pastors and youth ministers occupied the property, and the Assessors considered it exempt from real and personal property taxes as a parsonage.  
	Since July 1, 1998, Dr. Ralph Loomis, his wife, Donna Loomis, and their family occupied the subject property.  Dr. Loomis earned his doctorate in theology from Harvard University.  He previously served as senior pastor of the Dorchester Christian Fellowship.  Mrs. Loomis earned her degree in music and is a pianist, composer, and choir director.  
In January 1999, Rev. Wilson appointed both of them assistant pastors, and they began the process for licensure for the ministry within the Foursquare Gospel denomination.  At all relevant times, Dr. Loomis devoted approximately twenty-five to thirty hours per month to a variety of pastoral activities including teaching, counseling, preaching, and Bible study.  Mrs. Loomis devoted approximately thirty to thirty-five hours per month to her duties as New Hope Chapel's music minister.  Since January 1999, New Hope Chapel provided Dr. and Mrs. Loomis and their family the free use of the subject property as compensation for their work as assistant pastors and ministers.  Prior to that time, they had been paying rent.    
On March 1, 1999, Diane Thomas, a secretary for New Hope Chapel, sent a letter to the Assessors, which indicated that the Loomis family was paying rent for the privilege of occupying the subject property.  The Board found that it was sent in error and without Rev. Wilson's authorization.  The Board further found that it did not accurately portray how New Hope Chapel was using the subject property or the arrangement between Dr. and Mrs. Loomis and New Hope Chapel through Rev. Wilson.  In April 2000, Dr. and Mrs. Loomis each received a license and an official letter of appointment as assistant ministers within the Foursquare Gospel denomination.  Accordingly, they were authorized to perform all pastoral functions associated with the Foursquare Gospel denomination including administering sacraments, presiding at weddings and funerals, preaching, teaching, and counseling.  Even prior to that time, Rev. Wilson, as authorized by the Church by-laws, properly appointed Dr. and Mrs. Loomis assistant pastors or ministers who could and did perform many of these same functions.
On this basis, the Board found that on July 1, 1999 and July 1, 2000, New Hope Chapel, a religious organization within the meaning of Clause 11, owned the subject property.  The Board further found that, at all relevant times, assistant pastors or ministers of New Hope Chapel, tending to the religious needs of that organization and performing substantially the same duties as the senior pastor of the Church, occupied the subject property.  The Board found that, as of July 1, 1999, New Hope Chapel's senior pastor had properly appointed the assistant pastors or ministers who occupied the property, through the authority vested in him by the Church by-laws.  The Board also found that, as of July 1, 2000, these same assistants who occupied the subject property had become licensed assistant ministers of the religious organization that owned the property.  On this basis, the Board found that, during the relevant time period, the subject property was a parsonage owned by a religious organization for the exclusive benefit of that organization within the meaning of Clause 11.  
Therefore, the Board found that the subject property was exempt under G.L. c. 59, § 5, cl. 11, and, as a result, decided these appeals for the appellant.  Accordingly, the Board abated the real estate tax assessments in full for both of the fiscal years at issue.  

OPINION
	All property, real and personal, situated within the Commonwealth is subject to local tax unless expressly exempt.  G.L. c. 59, § 2.  General Laws c. 59, § 5 designates numerous types of property that are exempt from local real estate and personal property taxes.  More specifically, § 5, cl. 11 exempts from taxation "each parsonage . . . owned [by], or held in irrevocable trust, for the exclusive benefit of the religious organizations."  July 1st, which is the first day of the relevant fiscal years, is the requisite "date of determination."  G.L. c. 59, § 5 ("[T]he date of determination as to age, ownership, or other qualifying factors required by any clause [within § 5] shall be July first of each year.").  The issue presented to the Board by these appeals is whether Dr. and Mrs. Loomis' occupation of the subject property as assistant pastors or ministers who were unlicensed during part of the relevant time period was consistent with the requirements of Clause 11 for being designated an exempt parsonage.
	In Assessors of Boston v. Old South Society in Boston, 314 Mass. 364 (1943) ("Old South Society"), the Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") decided that a parsonage was "a residence furnished by a church to a minister."  Id. at 367.  The SJC held that even if an assistant minister occupied it, it still qualified as a "parsonage" within the meaning of Clause 11 if the assistant minister's duties were substantially the same as the principal minister's duties.  Id.  There was no mention in the case about any licensing requirements.  In the present appeals, the Board found that, at all relevant times, Dr. and Mrs. Loomis performed duties substantially the same as the "principal minister" or senior pastor.  Before they received their license from the Church, Rev. Wilson appointed them assistant pastors or ministers in accordance with Church by-laws.  In their capacity as such, they performed many of the duties that Rev. Wilson would have otherwise conducted as the senior pastor of New Hope Chapel.  Later, after receiving their licensure from the Church as assistant ministers, they could and did perform virtually any duty that Rev. Wilson performed as pastor.  On this basis, the Board found and ruled that, in the present appeals, the assistant ministers or pastors who occupied the parsonage, consistent with the SJC's holding in Old South Society, performed substantially the same duties as the senior pastor.  Accordingly, the Board further ruled that New Hope Chapel was entitled to claim exemption from real estate taxes for the subject property pursuant to Clause 11 for the fiscal years at issue in these appeals. 
	In rendering this ruling, the Board was guided by the principle that statutes granting exemptions from taxation are to be strictly construed.  Children's Hospital Medical Center v. Boston Board of Assessors, 388 Mass. 832, 838 (1983).  The Board was further cognizant of the rule that "[a] taxpayer is not entitled to an exemption unless he shows that he comes within [] the express words" of the statute granting the exemption.  Animal Rescue League v. Assessors of Bourne, 310 Mass. 330, 331 (1941), citing Milford v. County Commissioners, 213 Mass. 162 (1912).  "Any doubt must operate against the one claiming a tax exemption."  Boston Symphony v. Assessors of Boston, 294 Mass. 248, 257 (1935).  The Board found and ruled in these appeals that New Hope Chapel fell within "the express words" of the Clause 11 exemption.  
	On this basis, the Board found and ruled that New Hope Chapel meet its burden of proving that the subject property was a parsonage within the meaning of Clause 11.  Accordingly, the Board ruled that the subject property was entitled to the Clause 11 exemption for the fiscal years at issue and decided these appeals for the appellant.  
Therefore, the Board abated the fiscal year 2000 and 2001 assessments in full.
						THE APPELLATE TAX BOARD



					 By: _____________________________ 
						 Abigail A. Burns, Chairman



A true copy:



Attest: ______________________
         Clerk of the Board

 Because the yearly tax due on this parcel was $3,000 or less, timely payment "without the incurring of any interest charges" was not a prerequisite to the Appellate Tax Board's jurisdiction.  G.L. c. 59,  §§ 64 and 65.  
 Clause 11 provides an exemption from real and personal property taxation for houses of religious worship "and the pews and furniture and each parsonage . . . owned [by], or held in irrevocable trust, for the exclusive benefit of the religious organizations."  The Assessors did not dispute that the appellant was a religious organization that owned the subject property within the meaning of this clause; rather, they contended that the property itself was not being used as a parsonage during the fiscal years at issue.
 The fiscal year 2000 semi-annual tax bill was mailed on October 21, 1999.  New Hope Chapel's corresponding application for abatement was filed timely on November 2, 1999, well within thirty days of the sending of the tax bill.  G.L. c. 59, §§ 57 and 59.  The fiscal year 2001 semi-annual tax bill was mailed on October 6, 2000.  New Hope Chapel's corresponding application for abatement, however, was filed on November 6, 2001, thirty-one days later.  When the last day of a filing period falls on a Sunday, the filing is still considered timely if it is made on the following business day.  G.L.  c. 4, § 9 (providing, in pertinent part, that "when the day or the last day for the performance of any act . . . falls on Sunday or a legal holiday, the act may . . . be performed on the next succeeding business day.").  Accordingly, the Board found and ruled that New Hope Chapel timely filed its fiscal year 2001 application for abatement on Monday, November 6, 2000.   
 The Assessors did not call any witnesses to testify at the hearing of these appeals.  

ATB 2001-944