City of Nome v. Catholic Bishop of Northern Alaska

707 P.2d 870, 1985 Alas. LEXIS 314
CourtAlaska Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 4, 1985
DocketS-37, S-38 and S-36
StatusPublished
Cited by44 cases

This text of 707 P.2d 870 (City of Nome v. Catholic Bishop of Northern Alaska) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alaska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Nome v. Catholic Bishop of Northern Alaska, 707 P.2d 870, 1985 Alas. LEXIS 314 (Ala. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION

BURKE, Chief Justice.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.INTRODUCTION .874

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW .875

III. PROCEDURAL ISSUES .876

A. Remand .876

B. Standing .877

C. Stay of Taxes .877

IV. PRELIMINARY ISSUES .878

A. “Exclusive Use” is Required .879

B. Spatial Apportionment is Required .881

V.RELIGIOUS RESIDENCES .881

A. May a Single Parish Contain More Than One Exempt Residence? .882
B. May the Residence of an Assistant Pastor be Exempt? .. 882

C. Must a Pastor be Available and Committed Exclusively as a Clergyman for a Local Congregation in Order to Have an Exempt Residence? .883

D. Is the Residence of a Religious Worker Not Listed in AS 29.53.020(b)(1) Exempt? .-884

E. Is the Residence of a Religious Worker Not Listed in AS 29.53.020(b)(1) Directly Incidental to and Vitally Necessary for the Use of Other Exempt Property? .884

F. Is the Residence of Members of a Religious Order, Which is Not the Order’s Monastery, Exempt? .886

VI. CHURCH SANCTUARIES, RELIGIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND RELIGIOUS EDUCATION .887

VII. PROGRAMS OPERATED BY THE CHURCH OWNER .887
A. What is a “Charitable Purpose”? .887

B. When Does Payment for a Service Taint What was Otherwise An Exempt Activity? .888

C. KNOM Radio Station .889
1. Is KNOM used exclusively for “public worship”?.890
2. Is KNOM used for “religious education”?.890
3. Is KNOM used for “charitable purposes”?.890

*874 D. Youth Hostel . oo to

E. Thrift Shop . oo to

VIII.CHURCH PROPERTY LEASED TO ORGANIZATIONS . O *-3 ⅞ H W ¾ O ¾ I ⅞ w o ¾

IX. SUPPORT PROPERTIES .892
A. KNOM-Related Properties .893
B. Garage and Heating Plant .893
C. Quonset Hut .893
D. Lutheran Garage .894
E. KD Building .894
F. Lutheran Apartment.894
G. Young Center Storage and Parking and Methodist Office Building and Garage .895
H. Seaview House Storage .895
X. CONCLUSION .895

I.INTRODUCTION

These are consolidated appeals from two superior court decisions. That court reviewed the City of Nome’s refusal to allow tax exemptions under AS 29.53.020(a)(3) for properties claimed to have been used exclusively for nonprofit religious, charitable and educational purposes. Three separate entities claim exemptions: the Catholic Bishop of Northern Alaska (“Catholics”), the American Lutheran Church (“Lutherans”), and one local plus two national units of the United Methodist Church (“Methodists”). Each appealed denials of exemptions for four tax years, 1979 through 1982.

Proeedurally, the cases are similar. Each church applied for exemptions to the Nome City Assessor in each of these years, and each was denied exemption on a portion of its property. The churches appealed these denials to the City Council of the City of Nome, sitting as the Board of Equalization (“Board” or “City”). AS 29.-53.135. The Board affirmed the denials, and the churches appealed to the superior court. The superior court issued comprehensive decisions, 1 affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding in part.

The Lutherans and Methodists now appeal the relevant superior court decision to this court, and the City cross-appeals. The City appeals the court’s rulings on the Catholics’ properties. For convenience, the cases have been consolidated.

The appeal concerns tax exemptions under AS 29.53.020. The churches sought to exempt religious residences, administrative offices, sanctuaries, and property used for both religious educational and charitable purposes. They also sought to exempt properties used as support for exempt properties, and church property leased to other nonprofit organizations. For each exemption we interpret AS 29.53.020 to require both spatial apportionment and exclusive use for a religious, charitable or educational purpose. We recognize two narrow exceptions to the “exclusive use” requirement. First, a de minimus use will not defeat the exemption. Second, property may be exempt if its use is both directly incidental to and vitally necessary for the use of exempt property. We also acknowledge that some church property leased to other nonprofit organizations may be exempt. Finally, we recognize that support property may be exempt if it is necessary to the convenient use of exempt property. In this opinion, we apply these rules to the numerous properties at issue, and summarize our rulings in chart form for the City on remand. See section X.

*875 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

As a genera] rule, we approach issues independently of the superior court when that court acts as an intermediate court of appeal. Burgess Construction v. Smallwood, 698 P.2d 1206 (Alaska 1985); Jager v. State, 537 P.2d 1100, 1106 (Alaska 1975). That rule, however, does not apply here. In this case, the Board set forth no findings of fact when it denied exemptions to the churches. Since the hearing transcripts inadequately reflected the basis for the Board’s decisions, the superior court entered its own findings of fact. It based these upon the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The superior court thus exercised the discretion authorized by Appellate Rule 609 2 to “grant a trial de novo in whole or in part.” 3 When the superior court conducts a trial de novo, we review only the superior court’s decisions. Kott v. City of Fairbanks, 661 P.2d 177, 180 n. 1 (Alaska 1983).

We note that the Board erred by not entering findings of fact and conclusions of law in its determinations. Even absent a statutory duty to make findings, an agency 4 that makes an adjudicative decision must articulate its reasons.

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

Related

Christian Voice of Cent. Ohio v. Testa (Slip Opinion)
2016 Ohio 1527 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2016)
City & Borough of Juneau v. State, Local Boundary Commission
361 P.3d 926 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2015)
State, Department of Revenue v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc.
354 P.3d 1053 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2015)
McGlinchy v. State, Department of Natural Resources
354 P.3d 1025 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2015)
Lake & Peninsula Borough Assembly v. Oberlatz
329 P.3d 214 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2014)
BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc. v. State, Department of Revenue
325 P.3d 478 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2014)
Griswold v. Homer City Council
310 P.3d 938 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2013)
Henash v. Fairbanks North Star Borough
265 P.3d 302 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2011)
In Re Nash
257 P.3d 130 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2011)
Nash v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough
239 P.3d 692 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2010)
Fairbanks v. Dená Nená Henash
88 P.3d 124 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2004)
Ketchikan Gateway Borough v. Ketchikan Indian Corp.
75 P.3d 1042 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2003)
Roman Catholic Archdiocese v. City of East Orange
17 N.J. Tax 298 (New Jersey Tax Court, 1998)
Griswold v. City of Homer
925 P.2d 1015 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1996)
Breck v. Moore
910 P.2d 599 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
707 P.2d 870, 1985 Alas. LEXIS 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-nome-v-catholic-bishop-of-northern-alaska-alaska-1985.