stating that relief sought by taxpayer from this body "is not a judicial decision but a determination that must be made by the Legislature, either through expanded regulations or through a separate legislative enactment that specifically addresses whether not-for-profit corporations, such as Appellants, ... are entitled to exemption from ad valorem property taxation"
How later courts described this case
- stating that relief sought by taxpayer from this body "is not a judicial decision but a determination that must be made by the Legislature, either through expanded regulations or through a separate legislative enactment that specifically addresses whether not-for-profit corporations, such as Appellants, ... are entitled to exemption from ad valorem property taxation"
- discussing fact that "only when the use of property for charitable purposes qualifies as primary, direct, and immediate will such use come within the charitable purpose exemption"
- "Notwithstanding the laudable social objectives served by the existence and operation of Appellants' [assisted living] facilities, those purposes cannot be viewed as charitable unless they come within the definitions and conditions imposed by law for application of the tax exemption at issue.”
- luxury retirement facilities were not purely charitable because their costs were not "`within the financial reach of a significant segment of the community's elderly persons'"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
STARCHER, Justice,
concurring:
(Filed Dec. 23, 2004)
I concur in the majority’s reasoning and holding.
I write separately to point out that the estate in land that is created in the living units in the instant case is a hybrid. This estate in land is unlike traditional fee ownership, and also unlike a traditional leasehold or rental estate.
Because these living units do not fit well into traditional categories of estates in land, it is difficult to apply traditional analyses to their tax status — i.e., are they to be taxed as “rental” or “owner-occupied”? (To my thinking, they are more like owner-occupied.)
The Legislature probably should speak to this issue, for the guidance of taxing authorities, investors, residents, and developers.
Accordingly, I concur.