Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Department of Revenue

11 Or. Tax 101
CourtOregon Tax Court
DecidedOctober 27, 1988
DocketTC 2717
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 11 Or. Tax 101 (Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Department of Revenue) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oregon Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Department of Revenue, 11 Or. Tax 101 (Or. Super. Ct. 1988).

Opinion

*102 EDWARD H. HOWELL, Judge

Pro Tempore.

Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Department of Revenue which denied a property tax exemption for the tax year 1985-86 for two separate tax accounts in Multnomah County. Plaintiff contends that it is a charitable institution and therefore entitled to the exemption under ORS 307.130.

The Young Men’s Christian Association of Columbia-Willamette (YMCA-CW) is the owner of real or personal property, or both, at ten different locations in Multnomah County. The two properties in question are known as the “Metropolitan Fitness Center” (Metropolitan) and the “Commonwealth Fitness Center” (Commonwealth).

For many years the Multnomah County Assessor granted a charitable tax exemption to all the YMCA-CW’s property. In June 1985, this court issued an alternative writ of mandamus directing the assessor to place Metropolitan property on the tax rolls or show cause why he had not done so. As a result, the assessor revoked the exemption not only for Metropolitan but for all the real and personal property owned by plaintiff in Multnomah County on the grounds that YMCA-CW was not engaged in “charitable activity” under ORS 307.130.

Thereafter plaintiff appealed to the Department of Revenue. After a lengthy hearing, the Department held that all of plaintiffs property was exempt except that located at Metropolitan and the personal property located at Commonwealth. The Department concluded that all the other YMCA facilities “advance charitable purposes” and were entitled to the exemption. Regarding the Metropolitan and the Commonwealth centers the order stated:

“The providing of facilities for physical fitness can be a charitable purpose if done in a charitable manner. However, the two fitness centers are not operated in a charitable manner because of their policies to serve only a small segment of the community, their pricing structure, and the minimal element of giving.”

Plaintiff appeals the decision of the Department of Revenue to this court. A motion to intervene was filed by The Court Club, Inc. (Court Club), a private health and fitness club, and Northwest Alliance For Market Equality *103 (N.A.M.E.), an association of health and fitness organizations. The motion was allowed. 1

According to the present articles of incorporation, the purpose of the YMCA-CW is:

“To promote the development of Christian character and activity in its members, the cultivation of Christian concern and the improvement of the mental, physical and spiritual condition of its members and other persons.”

The plaintiff and all the other YMCA’s in the United States, numbering about 1,000, belong to the National Council of YMCA’s. Each of the individual YMCA’s is autonomous and governs its own activities. Plaintiff and the others are operated by groups of volunteers. The headquarters of the National YMCA in Chicago is governed by a national board of 50 people elected from local YMCA’s. The national office has a budget of $25 million, one-half of which comes from dues from local YMCA’s which pay two percent of their gross revenue to the national organization.

Plaintiff serves the Portland metropolitan community through several branches. The branch facilities scattered through the area are programed to meet the needs of the particular area or neighborhood. Each branch, while generally autonomous, is answerable to the YMCA-CW, the plaintiff herein, which operates as the headquarters for the local branches. Each branch pays a percentage of its gross income to the headquarters.

Metropolitan was opened in 1977 at a cost of $4.3 million. It is a large, three-story, 68,600 square foot building. A family membership costs $525 to join, plus dues of $60 per month. A single person is charged $350 to join and $37 dues per month. 2 Metropolitan was designed for and is used to serve the working adult population of the downtown core area. It has approximately 3,600 memberships (approximately 4400 *104 members), plus about 300 more who are involved in the Cardiac Therapy Program.

Commonwealth is located in the Commonwealth Building in downtown Portland. Again, the use is primarily for tenants of Commonwealth and adults located in the downtown area. In 1986 it had 145 members. Single persons are charged $125 to join, plus $27.25 per month. Couple memberships are $175 to join, plus $40 per month.

ORS 307.130 states, in material part:

“(1) [T]he following property owned or being purchased by incorporated literary, benevolent, charitable and scientific institutions shall be exempt from taxation:
“(a) [0]nly such real or personal property, or proportion thereof, as is actually and exclusively occupied or used in the literary, benevolent, charitable or scientific work carried on by such institutions.”

There is no dispute that the YMCA-CW is an incorporated charitable organization. The disagreement is whether its property is actually and exclusively occupied or used in the charitable work carried on by the YMCA-CW. It is the plaintiffs position that the requirement is satisfied if the Metropolitan and Commonwealth centers are reasonably necessary to accomplish the YMCA-CW’s charitable work. Plaintiff argues that it is not necessary to show that the Metropolitan and Commonwealth are charitable institutions separately from YMCA-CW and in their own right.

The plaintiff relies on the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court in YMCA v. Dept. of Rev., 268 Or 633, 522 P2d 464 (1974). There the Tax Court held that kitchen food services provided by the YMCA in the downtown YMCA building were not entitled to an exemption because it was not required by the primary goals of the YMCA. The Supreme Court reversed and stated: “It is enough if the activity undertaken on the property substantially contributes to the furtherance of the charity’s goals.” (Emphasis added.) (268 Or at 635.)

The test of “reasonably necessary” or “substantially contributes” to the overall goals of an exempt organization does not apply to all cases. The test was rejected by the Supreme Court in Found. of Human Understanding v. Dept. of Rev., 301 Or 254, 722 P2d 1 (1986). The court stated:

*105 “We have used a test of ‘reasonable necessity’ when discussing ministers’ or supervisors’ residences connected with churchs [sic] or schools, German Apos. Christ. Church v. Dept. of Rev., supra; Multnomah School of Bible v. Mult. Co., supra.

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

Related

Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Department of Revenue
784 P.2d 1086 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1989)
YMCA v. Dept. of Rev.
784 P.2d 1086 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
11 Or. Tax 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-mens-christian-assn-v-department-of-revenue-ortc-1988.