# Community Options, Inc. v. Board of Property Assessment

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 31, 2002 · 571 Pa. 672

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748366

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMUNITY OPTIONS, INC., Appellant, v. BOARD OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENT, Appeals and Review, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 31, 2002
- **Citations:** 571 Pa. 672; 813 A.2d 680; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 3123
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Eakin
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748366

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 govern…

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9748366. Public record. Not legal advice.