{ "id": 8955249, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF THE CHURCH OF YAHSHUA THE CHRIST AT WILMINGTON from the decision of the Pender County Board of Equalization and Review concerning property tax exemption for tax year 2000", "name_abbreviation": "In re Appeal of the Church of Yahshua the Christ at Wilmington", "decision_date": "2003-09-02", "docket_number": "No. COA02-1005", "first_page": "236", "last_page": "241", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "160 N.C. App. 236" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "253 S.E.2d 912", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "920", "parenthetical": "even after determining that an error justifying remand has occurred, an appellate court may \"examine the record to see if there would have been sufficient evidence to support necessary findings if they had been properly made\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566826 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "60", "parenthetical": "even after determining that an error justifying remand has occurred, an appellate court may \"examine the record to see if there would have been sufficient evidence to support necessary findings if they had been properly made\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 S.E.2d 270", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "273" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 N.C. App. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527944 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "195" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/93/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "310 S.E.2d 354", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "309 N.C. 820", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4762277, 4765254, 4768106, 4765325, 4765712 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/309/0820-05", "/nc/309/0820-02", "/nc/309/0820-04", "/nc/309/0820-03", "/nc/309/0820-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.E.2d 298", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "299" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "62 N.C. App. 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8520157 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "47" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/62/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "576 S.E.2d 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "319" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 642", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511442 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "647" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0642-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "568 S.E.2d 208", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211", "parenthetical": "charitable and religious exemptions not reviewed where taxpayer solely assigned error as to the educational exemption" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 N.C. App. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251104 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "645", "parenthetical": "charitable and religious exemptions not reviewed where taxpayer solely assigned error as to the educational exemption" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/152/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.4", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "exemption for property used for educational purposes" }, { "page": "(b)", "parenthetical": "\"Land (exclusive of improvements" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 11, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)", "parenthetical": "emphasis added" }, { "page": "(d)(l)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 488, "char_count": 11394, "ocr_confidence": 0.745, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.75452219931852e-08, "percentile": 0.5311859880633968 }, "sha256": "4b4060480470eccb05bf48f0ad4d1760fc6c1ba202bdd879dd214165a5179215", "simhash": "1:9951111a373a68a8", "word_count": 1822 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:23.823025+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges MARTIN and HUNTER concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF THE CHURCH OF YAHSHUA THE CHRIST AT WILMINGTON from the decision of the Pender County Board of Equalization and Review concerning property tax exemption for tax year 2000" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GEER, Judge.\nThis appeal arises under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3(a) (2001), which exempts from property tax \u201c[b]uildings, the land they actually occupy, and additional adjacent land reasonably necessary for the convenient use of any such building\u201d to the extent the property is used \u201cfor religious purposes . . . .\u201d Appellant, The Church of Yahshua The Christ at Wilmington (\u201cthe Church\u201d), challenges a decision of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission. The church contends that real property owned by the Church should be exempt from taxation under \u00a7 105-278.3 even if the land has no buildings on it. The Church argues alternatively that if the tax exemption provided in \u00a7 105-278.3 requires that there be buildings on the land, then the statute is unconstitutional as applied to the Church because the Church\u2019s religious tenets prohibit members worshiping in buildings.\nWe hold that the tax exemption set out in \u00a7 105-278.3 applies only to buildings and the land necessary for their convenient use. Because the Church admits that no buildings exist on its land, the Commission correctly determined that the property at issue was not entitled to tax exemption under \u00a7 105-278.3. We do not reach the constitutional question as set forth by the Church because the Church does not contend that its members are barred from using buildings for \u201creligious purposes\u201d as opposed to worship.\nThe Church owns approximately 50 acres of land located in Pender County, North Carolina. For tax year 2000, the Church filed a request with the Pender County tax assessor for exemption of this land from property taxes. The tax assessor denied the request and the Pender County Board of Equalization and Review affirmed the decision. The Church appealed to the North Carolina Property Tax Commission. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Commission affirmed the decision of the Board. The Church appeals the Commission\u2019s final decision.\nThe Commission found that the Church is a religious body and that it owns the approximately 50 acres of land at issue. According to the Commission, there is \u201cno formal building of worship\u201d on the land, but the Church has plans to construct buildings \u201csuch as an outdoor pavilion, tractor shed, workshop, storage buildings and homes for active ministers.\u201d The Commission found that the land is used for camping and recreational outings as well as observing nature, but further found that the Church had failed to demonstrate that regular instruction or courses of study occur on the land.\nBased on these findings, the Commission concluded that the Church failed to meet its burden of proving its entitlement to an exemption under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.4 (2001) (exemption for property used for educational purposes), \u00a7 105-278.5 (2001) (exemption for property owned by a religious educational assembly), \u00a7 105-278.6 (2001) (exemption for property used for charitable purposes), and \u00a7 105-278.3 (exemption of property used for religious purposes). Since the Church has assigned error solely to the conclusion of law that it failed to meet its burden of proof with respect to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3, we review only whether the Commission erred in its decision under that statute. In re Appeal of the Master\u2019s Mission, 152 N.C. App. 640, 645, 568 S.E.2d 208, 211 (2002) (charitable and religious exemptions not reviewed where taxpayer solely assigned error as to the educational exemption).\nWith respect to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3, the Commission noted that the Church \u201ccontends that the subject property should be exempt because the property is used as a natural retreat for outdoor altar services that requires extended buffers to create such an environment.\u201d The Commission rejected this argument because the Church \u201cfailed to show that the subject land qualifies for the exemption when there were no buildings of worship situated on the property that are used for a religious purpose.\u201d\nStandard of review\nThis Court reviews decisions of the North Carolina Property Tax Commission pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345.2 (2001). \u201cQuestions of law receive de novo review, while issues such as sufficiency of the evidence to support the Commission\u2019s decision are reviewed under the whole-record test.\u201d In re Appeal of The Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P\u2019ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319 (2003). Under de novo review, the Court \u201cconsiders the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the Commission.\u201d Id.\nWhen the evidence is conflicting, the whole-record test requires the Court to review all the evidence in the record, including evidence contradictory to that upon which the Commission relied, to determine whether the decision has a rational basis in the evidence. In re Southview Presbyterian Church, 62 N.C. App. 45, 47, 302 S.E.2d 298, 299, disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 820, 310 S.E.2d 354 (1983). We may not substitute our judgment for that of the Commission, but rather must decide whether substantial evidence exists to support the decision. Id.\nI\nThe Church first argues that since it uses its land for religious purposes, it should be entitled to a property tax exemption under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3 even in the absence of any buildings on the land. We disagree.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3(a) (emphasis added) provides:\n(a) Buildings, the land they actually occupy, and additional adjacent land reasonably necessary for the convenient use of any such building shall be exempted from taxation if wholly owned by an agency listed in subsection (c), below, and if:\n(1) Wholly and exclusively used by its owner for religious purposes as defined in subsection (d)(1), below ....\nThe statute is unambiguous. The focus of the exemption is on \u201cbuildings.\u201d Land is exempted only to the extent necessary for convenient use of the building.\nThe Church\u2019s construction of the statute would significantly expand the scope of the exemption to cover not only buildings, but land used for religious purposes. It is for the General Assembly to determine what property should be exempt from taxation and when the General Assembly has intended to exempt land, as opposed to buildings, it has done so explicitly. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.4(b) (\u201cLand (exclusive of improvements); and improvements other than buildings, the land actually occupied by such improvements, and additional land reasonably necessary for the convenient use of any such improvement shall be exempted from taxation\u201d if owned by an educational institution that also owns buildings exempted from taxation). The Church\u2019s proposed construction of the statute is particularly unwarranted given the principle that statutes exempting specific property from taxation based on the purpose for which the property is used should be construed strictly against exemption and in favor of taxation. In re Appeal of Worley, 93 N.C. App. 191, 195, 377 S.E.2d 270, 273 (1989).\nWe hold that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3 does not provide for a tax exemption in the absence of buildings used by the owner \u201cfor religious purposes.\u201d The Commission erred, however, in requiring a \u201cbuilding of worship\u201d for property to qualify for the exemption under \u00a7 105-278.3. The building and accompanying land need only be used \u201cfor religious purposes.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3(d)(l) defines \u201creligious purpose\u201d as \u201cone that pertains to practicing, teaching, and setting forth a religion.\u201d The statute notes that \u201c[although worship is the most common religious purpose, the term encompasses other activities that demonstrate and further the beliefs and objectives of a given church or religious body.\u201d Id.\nThe Commission should, therefore, have made findings of fact regarding whether there were buildings being used for religious purposes on the property at issue. Under the whole record test, we may review the record to determine whether the evidence is conflicting and whether remand is therefore necessary. See In re Rogers, 297 N.C. 48, 60, 253 S.E.2d 912, 920 (1979) (even after determining that an error justifying remand has occurred, an appellate court may \u201cexamine the record to see if there would have been sufficient evidence to support necessary findings if they had been properly made\u201d). Here, the record reveals no dispute. When asked at the hearing whether there were any buildings on the property, counsel for the Church replied, \u201cNo, sir, there are not.. . .\u201d Additionally, the Church stated in its reply brief filed with this Court: \u201cThe fact that no building used for religious purposes existed on the subject property was known to the Commission before the hearing on the merits.\u201d Because the property has no buildings at all, it does not qualify for tax exemption under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3.\nII\nThe Church next argues that to the extent N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3 requires a building for the tax exemption to apply, it is unconstitutional as applied to the Church because the Church\u2019s religious beliefs prohibit worshiping as a group in a building. We need not address the constitutional issue as posed by the Church because the Church does not suggest that its beliefs preclude using buildings \u201cfor religious purposes\u201d other than worship.\nIn fact, the record reveals that the Church advised the Commission that the Church\u2019s \u201clong term plans include the construction of some buildings, principally on the front third of the subject property. These buildings will include an outdoor pavilion, tractor shed, workshop, storage buildings, and homes for active ministers, elderly or infirm ministers, and caretakers.\u201d Because the Church is not barred by its beliefs from constructing buildings to be used for non-worship related religious purposes and therefore may, without violating its religious beliefs, still qualify for the tax exemption under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-278.3, this case presents no constitutional issue.\nBecause of our disposition of this appeal, we do not address the Church\u2019s remaining assignments of error.\nAffirmed.\nJudges MARTIN and HUNTER concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GEER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Church of Yahshua the Christ at Wilmington, pro se, appellant.", "Robert H. Corbett, for Pender County, appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: APPEAL OF THE CHURCH OF YAHSHUA THE CHRIST AT WILMINGTON from the decision of the Pender County Board of Equalization and Review concerning property tax exemption for tax year 2000\nNo. COA02-1005\n(Filed 2 September 2003)\n1. Taxation\u2014 property \u2014 religious use exemption \u2014 building required\nA property with no buildings did not qualify for the N.C.G.S. \u00a7 105-278.3 tax exemption for property used for religious purposes. The statute is not ambiguous; land is exempted only to the extent necessary for the convenient use of building. However, the building and accompanying land need only be used for religious purposes, which may encompass activities other than worship.\n2. Taxation\u2014 property \u2014 religious use exemption \u2014 building required \u2014 constitutionality\u2014not reached\nA church\u2019s beliefs prohibiting worship in a building did not raise the issue of whether it was constitutional to refuse a property tax exemption for buildings used for religious purposes because the church was not barred by its beliefs from using buildings for non-worship religious purposes.\nAppeal by The Church of Yahshua the Christ at Wilmington from final decision entered 10 December 2001 by the North Carolina Property Tax Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 May 2003.\nThe Church of Yahshua the Christ at Wilmington, pro se, appellant.\nRobert H. Corbett, for Pender County, appellee." }, "file_name": "0236-01", "first_page_order": 266, "last_page_order": 271 }