{ "id": 1555115, "name": "GRACE, INCORPORATED, a New Mexico Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF BERNALILLO, State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Grace, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners", "decision_date": "1981-11-19", "docket_number": "No. 5233", "first_page": "260", "last_page": "263", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "97 N.M. 260" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "639 P.2d 69" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "93 N.M. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1568655 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/93/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N.M. 548", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.M. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557047 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/92/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 N.W. 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 Minn. 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 268534 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/173/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 P.2d 777", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1935, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "783" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 N.M. 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1573393 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1935, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "414" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/39/0403-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 N.M. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1575362 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1933, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/37/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 N.M. 418", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "39 N.M. 416", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "48 P.2d 777", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1935, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "39 N.M. 403", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1573393 ], "year": 1935, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/39/0403-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 568, "char_count": 11993, "ocr_confidence": 0.755, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.97719583985245e-08, "percentile": 0.5025157837387431 }, "sha256": "c6bc28f7f0955b53f62734dffcd27f7b88621f470fa374af6673e14f44012222", "simhash": "1:bc15efbcd747a03c", "word_count": 1938 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:51.585150+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "LOPEZ, J., concurs.", "SUTIN, J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "GRACE, INCORPORATED, a New Mexico Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF BERNALILLO, State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWALTERS, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff appeals from denial of a property tax refund it sought in District Court, claiming exemption under Art. VIII, \u00a7 3 of the New Mexico Constitution.\nThe constitutional provision relied on by plaintiff is as follows:\n* * * [A]ll church property not used for commercial purposes, all property used for educational or charitable purposes * * shall be exempt from taxation.\nIt appears from the trial court\u2019s findings that Grace, Inc. (\u201cGrace\u201d) is a non-profit corporation governed by the laws and regulations of the Methodist Church. The parties stipulated that the corporation\u2019s sole purpose is to acquire land and when a Methodist Church is established on any so-acquired lands, to deed the land to the church. Bernalillo County assessed property taxes on a vacant lot which Grace had acquired for the purpose of building a church thereon sometime in the future. The court found that the property was owned by plaintiff and was not commercial property nor used for commercial purposes. It concluded that \u201c[t]he subject property which is vacant property is not church property pursuant to\u201d the constitutional provisions on tax exemptions.\nPlaintiff argues that the case relied on by the trial court, Church of the Holy Faith v. State Tax Comm\u2019n, 39 N.M. 403, 48 P.2d 777 (1935), is no longer controlling because the constitutional church exemption when construed in Holy Faith, supra, read:\n* * * [A]ll church property, all property used for educational or charitable purposes * * * shall be exempt from taxation.\nUnder that earlier constitutional section, our Supreme Court determined that \u201cthe phrase \u2018church property\u2019 * * * means property required for the use of the church * It went on to say: \u201cTaxation is the rule, exemption the exception, and it is plain that * * * the exception fails as to property of a church as an entity which is not necessary for or is not used to promote the object or purpose of the church.\u201d In Holy Faith, supra, a dwelling house owned by the church, rentals from which were used for the church\u2019s religious and charitable purposes, was held not \u201cchurch property,\u201d nor was it being used for \u201ccharitable purposes.\u201d\nGrace urges that the 1972 constitutional amendment since the Holy Faith decision compels us to abandon the \u201cuse\u201d analysis employed by the Supreme Court in Holy Faith, and consider only that the property, admittedly owned by a church corporation, is not being used for a commercial purpose and it therefore falls within the tax exemption.\nThe argument is appealing; nevertheless, we feel obliged to recognize the principles expounded in Holy Faith and assume that the constitutional amendment was intended to conform the language of our Constitution with the decision reached there by our Supreme Court. Had the proponents of the amendment intended otherwise, we think the amendment might have stated \u201call church-owned property, without exception * * *\u201d or contained words of similar import. Our conclusion is bolstered by the reasoning of Holy Faith and other cases since the amendment took effect. In determining that ownership alone should not be the test for tax-exemption, the Holy Faith court approvingly quoted from State v. Union Congregational Church, 173 Minn. 40, 216 N.W. 326 at 328:\n[I]t is not to be assumed that the Legislature or the people intended to permit religious corporations and charitable and educational institutions to hold tax free any amount of real estate they might be able to acquire, without reference to the need or use thereof.\n39 N.M. at 414, 48 P.2d at 783.\nThat rationale has been repeated since Holy Faith. In NRA Special Contribution Fund v. Bd. of Cty. Comm\u2019rs, 92 N.M. 541, 591 P.2d 672 (Ct.App.1978), we observed that \u201cit is the direct and immediate use of the property that must govern our decision [regarding property tax exemption], and not the remote and consequential benefit derived from its use.\u201d We said, at 92 N.M. 548, (per Sutin, J.):\nThe rationale for this [constitutional] provision [equal property taxation] is that all property shall bear its share of the cost of government. Property which is exempt from taxation does not share in the burden. Therefore, in exchange for its exempt status, such property must confer a substantial benefit on the public.\nAnd, further, at 92 N.M. 541:\nWhere the land is idle, unimproved, and not in actual use * * * it will not qualify for tax exemption * * *. If a tax burden is placed on idle, unimproved, and unused land, it will create an incentive to avoid idleness and make a substantial use of the land [for tax-exempt] purposes.\nSisters of Charity v. County of Bernalillo, 93 N.M. 42, 596 P.2d 255 (1979), also applied the ownership-and -use inquiry to determine whether property owned by a charitable institution, a portion of which was leased to a charitable organization, and the proceeds of which produced no other income than necessary to reduce the lessor\u2019s mortgage obligation, was tax-exempt. Under those facts, it was held that the pro-tanto amount of property leased to the charitable organization was exempt; the remainder was not. That case specifically looked to use of the property to attain the result reached.\nWe hold, therefore, that the constitutional language \u201cnot used for commercial purposes\u201d contemplates a concurrent affirmative, active, non-taxable use to qualify church-owned property for tax-exempt status. A decision based on ownership alone denies a consideration of the principles of \u201cuse,\u201d and we do not believe that an historical survey of New Mexico case law relative to tax exemption will permit us to ignore that pervasive consideration. We cannot equate \u201cnot used for commercial purposes\u201d with \u201cnot used at all,\u201d because, in our opinion, to do so would be to disregard everything our courts have said to date regarding the interpretation to be given this section of our Constitution.\nThe judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nLOPEZ, J., concurs.\nSUTIN, J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "WALTERS, Chief Judge." }, { "text": "SUTIN, Judge\n(dissenting).\nI dissent.\nThe trial court found:\n3. The plaintiff is a non-profit corporation * * * controlled and governed by the laws and regulations of the United Methodist Church * * *.\n4. The plaintiff is controlled by and subject to the Discipline of the United Methodist Church.\n5. The property is vacant property and was obtained * * * to build a church at some time in the future.\n6. The property * * * is not commercial property or property used for commercial purposes as defined by * * * Regulations of the Property Tax Division * * *\n******\nThe trial court concluded:\n******\n2. \u201cChurch property\u201d means property required for use of the church and is property used for religious worship and instruction. (Church of the Holy Faith, Inc. vs. State Tax Commission, et al., 39 N.M. 403, 48 P.2d 777)\n3. [V]acant property is not church property pursuant to Article VIII, Section 3, or [sic] the Constitution of the State of New Mexico.\n4. The subject property is taxable by the County of Bernalillo.\nThe findings of the trial court established that Grace\u2019s property is exempt from taxation. We are concerned only with the conclusions of the court. Church of the Holy Faith is the stumbling block.\nChurch of the Holy Faith was decided in 1935 prior to the amendment of Article VIII, \u00a7 3 of the New Mexico Constitution. Prior to the amendment, this section read in pertinent part:\n[A]ll church property * * * shall be exempt from taxation.\nChurch of the Holy Faith held that a dwelling house and the lot upon which it was situated and rented, the proceeds of which were turned over to the parish church and used for religious purposes, was not \u201cchurch property.\u201d The court said:\nWe conclude that the property in question is not being used for religious purposes and therefore is not \u201cchurch property\u201d .. . and is therefore subject to taxation. [39 N.M. 416.]\nIn other words, the court held \u201cownership\u201d of.church property irrelevant to the right of exemption from taxation. \u201cUse\u201d of church property for religious purposes, not mentioned in the Constitution, was the essential basis upon which to claim an exemption. To be sure, I agree with the dissenting opinion of Justice Zinn concurred in by Justice Watson, that:\n\u201cAll church property\u201d is plain language, and to the mind of the citizen who voted for its adoption it had but one meaning, simply all property belonging to the church, or all property of the church. [39 N.M. 418.]\n\u201cAll church property\u201d does not require \u201cmetaphysical or logical subtleties\u201d to interpret it.\nNevertheless, prior to the constitutional amendment, Church of the Holy Faith remained the law of the State. Churches recognized that they were forestalled from future planning because they could not avoid the burden of taxation. Churches, speaking through people, decided to change the Church of the Holy Faith rule. In 1972, the people amended Article VIII, \u00a7 3 to read:\n[A]ll church property not used for commercial purposes * * * shall be exempt from taxation. [Emphasis added.]\nBy adoption of this constitutional amendment, the people substituted \u201cnot used for commercial purposes\u201d for \u201cnot being used for religious purposes.\u201d Grace\u2019s vacant property, \u201cnot used for commercial purposes * * * shall be exempt from taxation.\u201d The constitutional amendment cured the ailment fostered by Church of the Holy Faith. Of course, if church property was used for commercial purposes, it would be subject to taxation.\nIf we apply the amended constitutional amendment to the rule established in Church of the Holy Faith it would read:\nWe conclude that the property in question, not being used for religious purposes and \u201cnot used for commercial purposes\u201d is, nevertheless, not \u201cchurch property\u201d and is therefore subject to taxation.\nIn other words, vacant church property is and is not exempt from taxation. If it is not used for religious purposes it is not exempt from taxation. But if it is \u201cnot used for commercial purposes\u201d it is exempt. Or, if we say that vacant property \u201cnot used for commercial purposes\u201d is not \u201cchurch property,\u201d the corollary is that vacant property \u201cused for commercial purposes\u201d is church property. We should not move from the sublime to the ridiculous to tax \u201cchurch property.\u201d\nReliance on rules of judicial construction of constitutional provisions which relate to tax exemption is an escape hatch. If an appellate court desires to deny an exemption, it states that an exemption from taxation must receive a strict construction and no claim of exemption should be sustained unless it is within the express letter or necessary scope of an exempting clause. On the other hand, if an appellate court desires to grant an exemption, it makes mockery of and casts aside the canon of strict construction. Temple Lodge No. 6, A. F. & A. M. v. Tierney, 37 N.M. 178, 20 P.2d 280 (1933).\nThe most reasonable rule to follow, if one becomes necessary, is this:\nConstitutional provisions for exemption from taxation should be given a reasonable, natural and practical construction to effectuate the purpose for which the exemption is created.\nThis rule does not lead to strained or unreasonable construction. Our Constitution is not a mere passive, stagnant entity, lagging behind the progress of human events and not susceptible of application to new situations. Rather it is a living, vital thing, not helpless to deal with new phases of old matters. It reaches out to embrace within its letter that which is clearly within its spirit.\nThe judgment of the district court should be reversed.", "type": "dissent", "author": "SUTIN, Judge" } ], "attorneys": [ "Perry S. Key, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Kenneth A. Hunt, Asst. County Atty., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "639 P.2d 69\nGRACE, INCORPORATED, a New Mexico Non-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF BERNALILLO, State of New Mexico, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 5233.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nNov. 19, 1981.\nRehearing Denied Dec. 1, 1981.\nWrit of Certiorari Denied Jan. 20, 1982.\nPerry S. Key, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant.\nKenneth A. Hunt, Asst. County Atty., Albuquerque, for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0260-01", "first_page_order": 290, "last_page_order": 293 }