Waushara County v. Graf

461 N.W.2d 143, 157 Wis. 2d 539, 1990 Wisc. App. LEXIS 786
CourtCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin
DecidedAugust 2, 1990
Docket89-1281
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 461 N.W.2d 143 (Waushara County v. Graf) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Wisconsin primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Waushara County v. Graf, 461 N.W.2d 143, 157 Wis. 2d 539, 1990 Wisc. App. LEXIS 786 (Wis. Ct. App. 1990).

Opinions

SUNDBY, J.

In this appeal, we decide that real estate held in trust for the benefit of an unincorporated church may be exempt from general property taxation under sec. 70.11(4), Stats. We therefore reverse the judgment foreclosing tax liens against the real estate held in trust for the benefit of the Basic Bible Church of [541]*541America/Order of Almighty God, Chapter 11000 ("Basic Bible Church") and vesting title to such property in Waushara county.

Section 75.521, Stats., permits the county to enforce the collection of tax liens and take title to tax-delinquent lands. The trustee of the Basic Bible Church contends that lands which she holds in trust for the benefit of the church are exempted from general property taxes under sec. 70.11(4), Stats.1 If the trustee is correct, she may object to the foreclosure on the grounds that the property is not liable to taxation.2

The real estate subject to foreclosure was acquired in 1977 by the Life Science Church, Order of Almighty God, Chapter No. 11000. The name of the church was changed February 25, 1978 when it was issued a new charter by The Basic Bible Church of America, Inc., of Minneapolis, Minnesota. On March 12, 1983, the Basic Bible Church conveyed the real estate to Sherri L. Graf and Barbara J. Pogue in trust for the church's benefit.3

It is undisputed that the Basic Bible Church is not incorporated as a religious society under sec. 187.01, Stats.4 It is not incorporated under sec. 187.09, Stats.5 It [542]*542is not incorporated under chs. 180 or 181, Stats.6 It is not incorporated in another state.7 It has not applied to the internal revenue service for designation as an exempt organization under sec. 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.8 The circuit court concluded that consequently there was no entity to claim exemption as a church or religious association; therefore, the Basic Bible Church had not brought itself within the terms of [543]*543sec. 70.11(4), Stats. We conclude that the trial court erred.

The facts as to the Basic Bible Church's organization are undisputed. Therefore, the circuit court's conclusion that the church cannot claim tax exempt status is subject to de novo appellate review. See Green Scapular Crusade v. Town of Palmyra, 118 Wis. 2d 135, 138, 345 N.W.2d 523, 525 (Ct. App. 1984) ("The facts having been established, the conclusion that the plaintiff is not a religious association is subject to de novo appellate review.").

Our appellate review does not, however, include review of a conclusion as to whether the Basic Bible Church's use of the real estate subject to foreclosure was an exclusive religious use. See Missionaries of La Salette v. Michalski, 15 Wis. 2d 593, 597, 113 N.W.2d 427, 429 (1962) (The use of property must be an exclusive religious use to qualify for exemption under sec. 70.11(4), Stats.). The circuit court made no finding in this respect. Therefore, we do not decide that the subject property is exempt from taxation under sec. 70.11(4), Stats. We hold only that the church was not required to show that it was incorporated as a religious society or corporation under ch. 187, Stats., or otherwise, to establish that its property is exempt from taxation under sec. 70.11(4).

We recognize that "[o]ne who seeks to have his property exempt from taxation is required to bring himself within the terms of the exemption statute." Engineers & Scientists v. Milwaukee, 38 Wis. 2d 550, 553, 157 N.W.2d 572, 574 (1968). The taxpayer has the burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to tax-exempt status. Church of Scientology of California v. Comm'r., 823 F.2d 1310, 1317 (9th Cir. 1987). This is especially [544]*544true in situations where, as here, there is a great potential for abuse because a church is controlled by an individual, a family or a small group of individuals. Id. The church must come forward with candid disclosure of the facts bearing on the exemption application. Id. What the ninth circuit said with respect to the Church of Scientology's request for exemption from income tax under sec. 501(c)(3), I.R.C., is equally applicable to the Basic Bible Church's claim of exemption under sec. 70.11(4), Stats. However, the county, on appeal, does not argue that the church has not brought itself within sec. 70.11(4), Stats., except for the insufficiency of its organization.

The county argued to the circuit court that federal courts of appeals, in numerous decisions, have affirmed commissioner's rulings that organizations such as the Basic Bible Church were tax scams, or methods of tax protestation. See, e.g., Loving Saviour Church v. United States, 556 F. Supp. 688 (S.D. 1983), aff'd, 728 F.2d 1085 (8th Cir. 1984).9 The county does not make that argument here and we conclude that it has abandoned its attack on the bona fides of the church. See Reiman Associates v. R/A Advertising, 102 Wis. 2d 305, 306 n.1, 306 N.W.2d 292, 294 (Ct. App. 1981) (issue not briefed or argued on appeal deemed abandoned).

We turn therefore to the issue of whether the Basic Bible Church was required to show that it was incorporated to establish that it was an "entity" which could claim tax exemption under sec. 70.11(4), Stats. The stat[545]*545ute does not impose the requirement.10 Ordinarily, this finding would end the case. A combination of factors, however, creates an ambiguity which persuaded the circuit court that to be exempt from taxation under sec. 70.11(4), a church or religious association must be an incorporated entity.

The first factor is the church's failure to take formal action under state or federal law to "charter" the church. The court cited ch. 187, Stats., and I.R.C. sec. 501(c)(3). Ambiguity may be created by the interaction of separate statutes. State v. Kenyon, 85 Wis. 2d 36, 49, 270 N.W.2d 160, 166 (1978).

The second factor is the church's failure to seek exemption from federal income tax under I.R.C. sec. 501(c)(3). Section 501(c)(3), I.R.C., however, does not provide for the incorporation or chartering of churches or religious organizations. Tax exemption thereunder is limited to a corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation. The Basic Bible Church does not claim it qualifies as one of the enumerated organizations. No significance can be attached to the church's failure to seek tax exemption under I.R.C. sec. 501(c)(3).

The final factor is the decision in In re Zarling, 70 Bankr. 402 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1987). In Zarling, the court voided a transfer by the debtor of his interest, in his farm to the Universal Life Church Charter No. 22406.

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

Related

Life Science Church v. Shawano County
585 N.W.2d 625 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1998)
Tempelis v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
485 N.W.2d 217 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1992)
Waushara County v. Graf
480 N.W.2d 16 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1992)
Waushara County v. Graf
461 N.W.2d 143 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
461 N.W.2d 143, 157 Wis. 2d 539, 1990 Wisc. App. LEXIS 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waushara-county-v-graf-wisctapp-1990.