Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2008

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 28, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of

Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-07-00447-CV

_______________

GRACE MEMORIAL BAPTIST CHURCH A/K/A GRACE BAPTIST

CHURCH N/K/A CHURCH OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, Appellant

V.

HARRIS COUNTY, on Behalf of Itself and on Behalf of

THE HARRIS COUNTY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY OF HARRIS

COUNTY, THE HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, THE HARRIS COUNTY HOSPITAL

DISTRICT; CITY OF HOUSTON; HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; HARRIS COUNTY

EDUCATION DISTRICT; and HOUSTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, Appellees

On Appeal from the 295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2004 B 54073

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In this

delinquent ad valorem property tax case, a church appeals a judgment in favor

of several taxing units on the grounds that the church was improperly named in

the petition below and is immune from taxation. Because the taxing units

established their prima facie case and the church raised no legally cognizable

defense, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In

September 2004, Harris County, the Harris County Education Department, the

Harris County Education District, the Port of Houston Authority of Harris

County, the Harris County Flood Control District, the Harris County Hospital

District; the Houston Independent School District; the City of Houston; and the

Houston Community College System (collectively, the A taxing units @ ) sued Grace Memorial Baptist Church

a.k.a. Grace Baptist Church n.k.a. Church of the Lord Jesus Christ (the A Church @ ) for delinquent property taxes. [1]

The taxing units sought to collect back property taxes and associated penalties

and interest on a vacant residential duplex owned by the Church and located on

Plum Drive in Houston.

A

hearing before a tax master was conducted in April 2006. The tax master found

that A all parties were properly cited and

noticed @ and concluded that the Church owed

back property taxes, penalties, interest, and attorneys = fees to the taxing units in an

amount totaling nearly $60,000. The Church appealed the tax master = s report to the District Court.

The

Church apparently failed to appear at the first trial setting on September 18,

2006, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the taxing units,

tracking the master = s report as to the amount of property taxes, penalties, interest,

and fees owed by the Church. In March 2007, however, the trial court granted

the Church = s motion for new trial.

The

trial court conducted a bench trial on May 17, 2007. The taxing units

presented evidence that the Church owned the property and provided a detailed

certified delinquent property tax statement from the Harris County Tax

Assessor-Collector. In response, the Church asserted that the taxing units

improperly named it as A Grace Memorial Baptist @ in the style of the case. In

addition, the Church argued that it is a sovereign entity;and therefore immune

from taxation and not subject to the court = s jurisdiction. The taxing units

responded that religious exemptions are determined exclusively through the

Harris County Appraisal District, which was not a party to this lawsuit. The

taxing units further asserted the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the

issue of any religious exemption because the Church had not followed the proper

procedures to obtain an exemption as a religious organization. The Church,

however, maintained that it is not subject to section 11.20 of the Property

Code. See Tex. Prop. Code Ann.

' 11.20 (Vernon 2008) (governing tax

exemptions for religious organizations). The trial court agreed that it was

without jurisdiction to determine the exemption issue and rendered judgment in

favor of the taxing units on the delinquent property tax issue. This appeal

ensued.

II. Issues Presented

The

precise issues the Church presents on appeal are not clearly enumerated in its

brief. Notwithstanding this lack of clarity, we glean the following issues for

review: (a) the style of the lawsuit names a non-existent not-for-profit Texas

corporation; (b) the Church is immune from State property taxes; and (c) the

Church is not required to follow the State = s procedures to obtain an exemption

from property taxes because the process violates the Church = s sovereignty.

III. Analysis

A. Style of Case

In the A Issues Presented @ section of its brief, the Church

states, A The style of the suit names a

non-existent not-for-profit Texas corporation. @ But as noted above, the taxing

units filed an amended petition in which they identified the Church as A Grace Memorial Baptist Church aka

Grace Baptist Church nka Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. @ Although the shorthand style of the

suit remained the same, the Church was clearly denominated in the body of the

petition as the defendant. Further, Church pastor Aubrey Vaughan admitted

during the bench trial that (1) the Church owns the property at issue,

(2) the pastor is the proper person to receive service on behalf of the

Church, (3) he is the pastor, and (4) he had notice of the lawsuit.

Finally, the Church provides no argument or legal authority explaining the

significance of the allegedly incorrect manner in which the case was originally

styled. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h).

Thus, we cannot say that this alleged error either probably caused the

rendition of an improper judgment or probably prevented the Church from

properly presenting its case to this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a). Under these circumstances, this

issue lacks merit.

B. The Church = s Claim of A Tax Immunity @

Our

resolution of the Church = s claim of A tax immunity @ turns on the difference between the procedures established

by statute for collecting delinquent taxes and for obtaining tax exemptions.

This case is a delinquent tax suit, and it is undisputed that taxes have not

been paid on the property since 1984. The Church does not deny that it owns

the property or that the property is located within the boundaries of the

taxing units. See Tex. Tax. Code

Ann. ' 42.09(b)(1), (2). Moreover, it is uncontroverted that the Church does

not currently have a religious exemption from the Harris County Appraisal

District and has not applied for such an exemption. [2]

Instead, the Church maintains that there is no need for it to apply for a tax

exemption because, as a church, it already is A immune @ from taxation. But see Tex. Const. art. VIII, ' 1(b) (providing that all real

property is subject to taxation A unless exempt as required or

permitted by this Constitution @ ) (emphasis added)).

Regardless

of whether a property owner considers the property to be A immune @ or A exempt @ from taxation, the Legislature has

provided a means for the property owner to protest the taxation of its

property. See Tex. Tax Code Ann.

' ' 41.41(a)(3) (Vernon 2008)

(property owner is entitled to protest before the appraisal review board the

inclusion of the owner = s property on the appraisal records); (a)(9) (property owner

may also protest before the appraisal review board any action of the appraisal

district that applies to and adversely affects the property owner).

Specifically, the property owner may protest the tax by notifying the

appropriate appraisal review board. See id. ' (b)(3). The appraisal review board

then conducts a hearing on the protest and issues a written decision, which may

be appealed to the district court. Id. ' 41.47.

With

certain exceptions that are not at issue in this case, the procedure described

above is the exclusive means by which a property owner may adjudicate the

grounds of its tax protest. Id. ' 42.09(a). Moreover, because

the Tax Code provides procedures for adjudicating the Church = s asserted grounds for avoiding

taxation, those grounds cannot be used as a defense in a suit by a taxing unit

to collect delinquent taxes. See id. (providing that a property owner

may not raise, as a defense to a suit to enforce collection of delinquent

taxes, any ground of protest that could be adjudicated by the appraisal review

board). Thus, the Church had no right to assert, and the trial court correctly

acknowledged that it had no jurisdiction to consider, the Church = s claim of immunity from taxation. See

Cameron Appraisal Dist. v. Rourk , 194 S.W.3d 501, 502 (Tex. 2006) (per

curiam) (holding that A a taxpayer = s failure to pursue an appraisal review board hearing

deprives the courts of jurisdiction @ to set aside individual

assessments); St. Joseph Orthodox Christian Church v. Spring Branch Indep.

Sch. Dist. , 110 S.W.3d 477, 479 (Tex. App. C Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, no pet.)

(concluding that church = s claim of entitlement to exemption may not be raised as a

defense in a suit for collection of delinquent taxes); see also Nw. Tex.

Conference of United Methodist Church v. Happy Indep. Sch. Dist. , 839

S.W.2d 140, 143 (Tex. App. C Amarillo 1992, no writ) (determining that compliance with the

administrative review process to resolve tax protests is jurisdictional); City

of Shenandoah v. Jimmy Swaggart Evangelistic Ass = n , 785 S.W.2d 899, 900, 903 (Tex. App. C Beaumont 1990, writ denied) (holding

that trial court A was jurisdictionally prohibited from allowing the appellee to

proceed with the claim of tax exemption during any portion of the delinquent

tax suit @ ).

In sum,

the Church failed to pursue the administrative procedures that were its

exclusive means of relief. [3] Thus, its

argument regarding tax immunity could not be considered at trial and cannot be

considered on appeal. The same is true of the Church = s argument that it could not A submit jurisdiction to any other by

paying taxes or filling out demanded government forms @ ; this basis for protest could have

been presented to the appraisal review board. Compare 34 Tex. Admin. Code ' 9.415(c)(7) (2008) (adopting a

form for religious organizations = applications for tax exemption) with

Tex. Tax Code Ann. ' 41.44(d) (explaining that a

notice of protest need not be on an official form). Because the

tax-protest procedure set forth in the Tax Code is the exclusive means to

assert these arguments, they are not legally-cognizable defenses in a tax

collection proceeding. We therefore overrule the remainder of the Church = s issues presented on appeal.

IV. Conclusion

Having

overruled each of the Church = s issues, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

/s/ Eva M. Guzman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum

Opinion filed August 28, 2008.

Panel consists of Justices Frost,

Seymore, and Guzman.

[1]

Initially, the taxing units sued A Grace Memorial Baptist Church, An Active Non Profit TX

Corp. @ by serving its registered agent, A.O. Singer, in

LaMarque, Texas. By amended petition filed May 10, 2005, the taxing units

served the Church through its pastor and executive committee member, Aubrey

Vaughan, naming the Church as a defendant in the body of its petition as

follows: A Grace Memorial Baptist Church aka Grace Baptist Church

nka Church of the Lord Jesus Christ. @

The Church is not incorporated.

[2]

According to Vaughan, completing the forms

required to obtain a religious exemption would violate the Church = s religious principles.

[3]

See

Tex. Tax Code Ann. '' 11.43(a) (application process); 41.41(a) (taxpayer = s right to protest); 41.47(a) (appraisal review board = s determination of protest); 42.01(1)(A) (property

owner = s right of appeal); 42.21(a), (b) (appeal procedure);

42.41, .42, .43 (correction of tax rolls and bills, refund of any

overpayment). We further note that the Legislature is authorized to exempt

religious organizations from taxation but is not required to do so. Tex. Const. art. VIII, ' 2(a).