Brockton Knights of Columbus Building Ass'n v. Assessors of Brockton

72 N.E.2d 406, 321 Mass. 110, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 599
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedMarch 4, 1947
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 72 N.E.2d 406 (Brockton Knights of Columbus Building Ass'n v. Assessors of Brockton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brockton Knights of Columbus Building Ass'n v. Assessors of Brockton, 72 N.E.2d 406, 321 Mass. 110, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 599 (Mass. 1947).

Opinion

Dolan,

J. These are three appeals under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 58A, § 13, as amended, by The Brockton Knights of Columbus Building Association, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the taxpayer), from decisions of the Appellate Tax Board denying abatements of local taxes assessed against the taxpayer for the years 1941, 1942 and 1943 on real estate owned by it in the city of Brockton. Abatement was sought by the taxpayer on the ground that under the provisions of G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 59, § 5,1 the real estate involved was [111]*111exempt from taxation. The petitions were heard together by the board upon a “case stated” and an “amendment of ‘case stated.’” The facts as to each petition were the same in each of the years involved except as to the respective amounts of the taxes assessed.

The relevant facts are these: The taxpayer was incorporated in 1920 under the provisions of B. L. c. 125. All of its incorporators were members of Seville Council No. 93 of the Knights of Columbus. The declared purposes of the corporation are those of “engaging in and promoting work of a literary, benevolent and scientific nature; of promoting physical, mental and moral education and welfare; and of doing such other acts and things as may assist in the promotion and achievement of the foregoing purposes. While the corporation may have purposes that are different from the purposes of the Knights of Columbus, it shall have no purpose that shall conflict with the purposes, principles and laws of the Knights of Columbus, but on the contrary said purposes and principles of the Knights of Columbus so far as they are or shall be included in the above stated purposes are and shall be always among the dominant and controlling purposes of the corporation.” Membership in the taxpayer is composed exclusively of all who are members in good standing of Seville Council No. 93 of the Knights of Columbus, a fraternal benefit society organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut in 1882. The land involved was conveyed to the taxpayer in 1921 as a gift, and in 1928 the taxpayer erected a building thereon at a cost of $91,969. The cost of the building, furnishings and equipment, ex-elusive of the library, was met by donations made by members of the taxpayer and by others, and by a loan of $20,000.

The building, which is of brick construction, has a floor area of sixteen thousand sixty-five square feet. There are showers, lockers, four bowling alleys, a long hall, a stock room and a boiler room in the basement of the building. On its first floor there are a large lounge, a reading room, a large pool and billiard room, a lavatory, a library, two recreation rooms, a committee room, a treasurer’s office, a [112]*112steward’s office and a cloak room. On the second floor are a kitchen, a hall (ninety feet long and forty feet wide), a women’s lounge, lavatories, a lodge room, a coat room and a small hall. The valuation placed on the real estate by the assessors in each of the years involved was $30,000.

Subject to the approval of the board of directors, the executive committee manages the building, and during the years in question has allowed the facilities of the building to be used by some forty-five organizations, without charge, as headquarters for planning or engaging in programs and activities calculated to improve their members and others mentally, morally or physically. Among those organizations were four councils of the Knights of Columbus, the American Red Cross, The Boy Scouts of America, the Girl Scouts, Inc., bowling leagues, a golf club, the Buy American Committee, the Old Colony Commuters League, the Brock-ton Cosmetologists Association, The Scribblers Club, the Boost Brockton Committee, a local teachers association, an athletic association, and groups of persons affiliated with certain religious denominations and other civic organizations. The use of the building was also extended to veterans” organizations and their families, whenever those organizations held conventions in Brockton. In the rear of the building there was an area in which the public were permitted to park automobiles free of charge. The entire revenue of the taxpayer other than from donations was that derived from payments ("counter receipts”) made for the use of the pool and billiard room, bowling alleys, showers and lockers, and for the purchase of cigars, cigarettes, cards, and candy, by its members and others using the premises. The counter receipts of the taxpayer during the years involved were $4,273.73 in 1941, $3,475.61 in 1942, and $3,-534.97 in 1943. Donations received in those years amounted to $2,392 in 1941, $1,700.57 in 1942, and $4,550 in 1943. Operating expenses were $9,429.42 in 1941, $9,219.25 in 1942, and $8,675.77 in 1943. The taxpayer was dependent upon the counter receipts and donations, its annual charity circus, and current borrowings to maintain and operate the property. The taxpayer has no capital stock, and none of [113]*113its income is divided among its members. No profit was derived from the operation of the property.

The material conclusions reached by the board are as follows: "Although the purposes described in the corporation’s certificate of incorporation are charitable, it is our opinion, that the use of the building by the various organizations described in the agreed facts, for meeting purposes and headquarters, and the maintenance and use of the pool and billiard room, the bowling alleys, showers and lockers, together with the counter sale of cigars, cigarettes, cards, candy and tonics, do not carry out the declared purposes of the corporation. Many of those organizations are not of a charitable, educational, religious or scientific character, while the use of the facilities afforded and the counter sales are either of a social or commercial nature. It is to be noted that the corporation receives a substantial income from the counter sales and use of the pool room and the other recreational activities. There is a failure of concurrence of ownership and occupancy of the property by the corporation such as is required so that it may be entitled to the exemption under G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 59, § 5, Third. . . . The corporation’s land, used as a public parking space, is not devoted to charitable purposes. ... No charitable purpose is served.”

Appeals from decisions of the board to this court are only as to matters of law, and in the present cases the sole question of law is whether the conclusions of the board and the general findings for the assessors are warranted by the facts agreed and are not necessarily inconsistent therewith. Assessors of Boston v. Garland School of Home Making, 296 Mass. 378, 383-384. Assessors of Boston v. Lamson, 316 Mass. 166, 168. Assessors of Boston v. Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn Railroad, 319 Mass. 378, 379. See G. L. (Ter. Ed.) c. 58A, § 13.

It is conceded that the declared purposes set forth in the taxpayer’s certificate of incorporation are charitable. But the fact that the purposes for which the taxpayer was incorporated would permit it to operate as a public charity is not enough. See Hairenik Association, Inc. v. Boston, [114]*114313 Mass. 274, 279. To obtain exemption of the property involved the burden is on the taxpayer to prove “that it is in fact so conducted that in actual operation it is a public charity.” Jacob’s Pillow Dance Festival, Inc. v. Assessors of Becket, 320 Mass. 311, 313, and cases cited. And it is established that the burden of proving that the real estate in question was exempt from taxation rests upon the taxpayer.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lasell Village, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Newton
854 N.E.2d 119 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2006)
Sturdy Memorial Foundation, Inc. v. Board of Assessors
804 N.E.2d 368 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 2004)
Western Massachusetts Lifecare Corp. v. Board of Assessors
747 N.E.2d 97 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2001)
New England Legal Foundation v. City of Boston
670 N.E.2d 152 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1996)
Lynn Hospital v. Board of Assessors of Lynn
417 N.E.2d 14 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1981)
Board of Assessors v. Iron Rail Fund of Girls Clubs of America, Inc.
325 N.E.2d 568 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1975)
Benevolent & P. Ord. of Elks v. New Mexico Prop. AD
493 P.2d 411 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1972)
Milton Hospital & Convalescent Home v. Board of Assessors
271 N.E.2d 745 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1971)
Ultronic Systems Corp. v. Board of Assessors of Boston
244 N.E.2d 318 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1969)
Children's Hospital Medical Center v. Board of Assessors
227 N.E.2d 908 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1967)
Town of Norwood v. Norwood Civic Ass'n
165 N.E.2d 124 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1960)
Worcester Masonic Charity & Educational Ass'n v. Assessors of Worcester
94 N.E.2d 763 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1950)
Mead Corp. v. Glander
93 N.E.2d 19 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1950)
American Institute for Economic Research v. Assessors of Great Barrington
87 N.E.2d 186 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation
84 N.E.2d 129 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)
Assessors of Lancaster v. Perkins School
82 N.E.2d 883 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)
Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation v. Ryan
80 N.E.2d 471 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 N.E.2d 406, 321 Mass. 110, 1947 Mass. LEXIS 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brockton-knights-of-columbus-building-assn-v-assessors-of-brockton-mass-1947.