# Community Options, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals & Review > Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · November 21, 2000 · 764 A.2d 645 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695548 ## Case - **Full name:** COMMUNITY OPTIONS, INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENT, APPEALS AND REVIEW; Community Options, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review and Borough of Churchill, an Interested Party. Borough of Churchill, Appellant - **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania - **Decided:** November 21, 2000 - **Citations:** 764 A.2d 645; 2000 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 623 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Narick - **Judges:** Kelley, Flaherty, Narick - **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Red flag:** Reversed by Community Options, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment, 571 Pa. 672 (2002). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695548 ## Opinion text NARICK, Senior Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. I agree with the Majority that Appellants requests for a tax exemption for its properties for 1996 and 1997, should be denied. However, for the reasons set forth herein, I would grant its properties exemption from taxation for 1998 and future years. I agree that in order to qualify for tax exemption in Pennsylvania, the taxpayer must meet the five-part test as outlined in Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 1 , 487 A.2d 1306 (1985). Only part four of the test is in question here: whether Appellant relieves the government of some of its burden. The government was relieved of some of its burden. In 1997, with the enactment of the Institutions of Purely Public Charity Act (Act 55), Act of November 26, 1997, P.L. 508, as amended, 10 P.S. §§ 371-385, the General assembly in order to eliminate the vagueness of the term, further defined “institutions of purely public charity” and exempted from taxation certain institutions that did not meet the HUP standards as construed by this Court. Section 375(f)(l-6) of Act 55 provides in pertinent part as follows: (f) Government service. The institution must relieve the government of some of its burden. This criterion is satisfied if the institution meets any one of the following: (1) Provides a service to the public that the government would otherwise be obliged to fund or to provide directly or indirectly or to assure that a similar institution exists to provide the service. (2) Provides services in furtherance of its charitable purpose which are either the responsibility of the government by law or which historically have been assumed or offered or funded by the government. (3) Receives on a regular basis payments for services rendered under a government program if the payments are less than the full costs incurred by the institution, as determined by generally accepted accounting principles. (4) Provides a service to the public which directly or indirectly reduces dependence on government programs or relieves or lessens the burden borne by government for the advancement of social, moral, educational or physical objectives. (5) Advances or promotes religion and is owned and operated by a corporation or other entity as a religious ministry and otherwise satisfies the criteria set forth in section 5. (6) Has a voluntary agreement under section 7. 10 P.S. § 375(0(1-6). Through Act 55, the Legislature determined that an outside service provider relieves the government of some of its burden whenever it provides a service to the public that the government would otherwise be obligated to provide or *656 provides services in furtherance of its charitable purpose which are the responsibility of- government by law or which historically have been assumed or offered or funded by government. Thus, an outside service provider is relieving the government of some of its burden, even though it is not absorbing any costs of these programs which the government is obligated to provide. The common pleas court was correct in determining that Appellant met the minimum requirements under the constitution as read in connection with Act 55, and was exempt from taxation for 1998, and future years. Accordingly, I would affirm. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9695548. Public record. Not legal advice.