holding that a nonprofit corporation that acquires and renovates houses in residential neighborhoods with private funds and houses individuals diagnosed with mental retardation and severe physical disabilities with 24-hour supervision with government funds, relieved the government of a burden because the government was required to provide services for the individuals diagnosed with mental retardation under the MH/MR Act and the corporation also provided services that the government was not capable of providing
How later courts described this case
- holding that a nonprofit corporation that acquires and renovates houses in residential neighborhoods with private funds and houses individuals diagnosed with mental retardation and severe physical disabilities with 24-hour supervision with government funds, relieved the government of a burden because the government was required to provide services for the individuals diagnosed with mental retardation under the MH/MR Act and the corporation also provided services that the government was not capable of providing
- “[o]nly the fourth prong of this test, i.e., whether Appellant relieves the government of some of its burden, is at issue in this appeal”
- housing and services for intellectually disabled is charitable purpose and benefits indefinite class of persons who are legitimate subjects of charity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I have consistently taken the position that not-for-profit organizations that exhibit the traditional characteristics of a charity satisfy the five-part test this Court set forth in Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 1 , 487 A.2d 1306 (1985)(“HUP”), and are therefore entitled to a state tax exemption. See Mars Area Sch. Dist. v. United Presbyterian *684 Women’s Ass’n of North America, 554 Pa. 324 , 721 A.2d 360 (1998)(women’s religious organization operating residential facility for dependant and delinquent youth). Likewise, I have consistently opined that an exemption should not be granted to those who do not exhibit such characteristics. See Wilson Area Sch. Dist. v. Easton Hosp., 561 Pa. 1 , 747 A.2d 877 (2000) (Nigro, J., dissenting) (hospital with private profit motive); City of Washington v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 550 Pa. 175 , 704 A.2d 120 (1997)(Nigro, J., dissenting) (private college which primarily serves only those who can afford its significant tuition); Unionville-Chadds Ford Sch. Dist. v. Chester County Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 552 Pa. 212 , 714 A.2d 397 (1998) (Nigro, J., dissenting) (private horticultural facility which, at best, supplements limited cultural facilities government is obliged to provide).
Here, the record clearly supports a finding that Community Options, Inc. comports with traditional notions of a charity. In caring for individuals with physical and mental disabilities, it gratuitously provides services to individuals who are legitimate subjects of charity and relieves the government of the burden of otherwise caring for those same individuals. Moreover, it does so without reaping a profit and without paying its executives exorbitant salaries that would belie the organization’s purely charitable purpose. See R.R. 173a (listing 1995 salaries of three highest paid employees). Accordingly, I agree that Community Options, Inc. satisfies the five-part test in HUP and is entitled to a state tax exemption.