reviewing past cases on nonprofit organizations offering housing to the elderly and denying an exemption to Atrium Village because of rents charged to cover maintenance of facility
How later courts described this case
- reviewing past cases on nonprofit organizations offering housing to the elderly and denying an exemption to Atrium Village because of rents charged to cover maintenance of facility
- denying exemption where monthly charges to residents were set at a level to recoup taxpayer’s expenses and facility did not admit or retain those persons who were unable to pay
- "[A] statutory exemption does not depend alone on lofty or generous motives on the part of the donor.”
- “[A] statutory exemption does not depend alone on lofty or generous motives on the part of the donor.... [T]he law requires that the institution be run for those who have a real need for it.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SCHULTZ, Justice
(dissenting).
The case law in this state is clear that “gratuitous or partly gratuitous care” of elderly persons is a charitable purpose under the tax exemption statute. South Iowa Methodist Homes v. Board of Review, 173 N.W.2d 526, 532 (Iowa 1970); Hilltop Manor v. County Bd. of Review, 346 N.W.2d 37, 39 (Iowa Ct.App.1984); see Richards v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue, 414 N.W.2d 344, 351 (Iowa 1987). The record in this case shows that the residents of Atrium Village are being provided gratuitous care. Louis Jenn provided for the facility by donating $2,500,000 outright and by creating a trust which provides $40,000 income annually. The board of directors has a special fund set aside to meet emergencies and to provide care for residents unable to make monthly payments. The facility has also received thousands of dollars from other contributors and thousands of hours of voluntary services from the community.
Because I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that Atrium Village is not a charitable institution, I respectfully dissent.