Case Title: VT Alliance of Nonprofit Organizations v. City of Burlington

Citation: 177 Vt. 47, 2004 VT 57, 857 A.2d 305

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2004-06-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
VT Alliance of Nonprofit Organizations v. City of Burlington (2003-436); 
177 Vt. 47; 857 A.2d 305

2004 VT 57

[Filed 18-Jun-2004]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
  40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports. 
  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
  Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
  order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 2004 VT 57

                                No. 2003-436

  Vermont Alliance of Nonprofit Organizations     Supreme Court

                                                  On Appeal from
       v.                                         Chittenden Superior Court

  City of Burlington                              April Term, 2004

       Matthew I. Katz, J.

       Neil H. Mickenberg of Mickenberg, Dunn, Kochman, Lachs & Smith, PLC,
       Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellee.  

       Nikki A. Fuller, Assistant City Attorney, Burlington, for
       Defendant-Appellant.

       PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ.

       ¶ 1     SKOGLUND, J.  The City of Burlington appeals from a
  Chittenden Superior Court decision holding that the City had no authority
  to tax the business personal property of the Vermont Alliance of Nonprofit
  Organizations (VANPO).  We agree that the plain language of 32 V.S.A. §
  3618(c)(1) limits the City's ability to tax business personal property to
  those of businesses conducted for profit.  We affirm.
   
       ¶ 2     In response to a tax notice from the City, VANPO requested
  tax-exempt status for its business personal property on grounds that it was
  a nonprofit organization.  VANPO's request was denied by the City Assessor,
  then by the Board of Assessors and finally, by the Burlington Board of Tax
  Appeals.  VANPO then appealed to the Chittenden Superior Court.  In its
  motion for summary judgment, VANPO argued that it is a nonprofit
  organization and therefore business personal property was not taxable
  because 32 V.S.A. § 3618(c)(1) expressly defines "business personal
  property" eligible for taxation as "tangible personal property" used in any
  trade, business, or activity "conducted for profit."(FN1)

       ¶ 3     The City filed a cross-motion for summary judgment asserting
  that the Legislature did not intend § 3618(c)(1) to exempt personal
  property of businesses not conducted for profit and, if it had, it would
  have done so by including it in the list of exemptions found in Chapter 125
  of Title 32, specifically § 3802(4).  Section 3802 enumerates, in fifteen
  subsections, when real or personal property may be exempt from taxation. 
  See 32 V.S.A. § 3802.  Subsection (4) provides an exemption for "[r]eal and
  personal estate granted, sequestered or used for public, pious or
  charitable uses . . . ."  Id. at § 3802(4).

       ¶ 4     The superior court found in favor of VANPO, holding that §
  3618(c)(1) governed the question of whether the City may tax VANPO's
  personal property.  Since § 3618(c)(1) exempts business personal property
  of nonprofit organizations from taxation and VANPO is a nonprofit, the
  court found that "there is no authority to tax its business personal
  property."  This appeal followed. 
   
       ¶ 5      On appeal, the parties debate the primacy of separate
  statutes governing property taxation.   The parties agree that there were
  no facts in dispute before the trial court.(FN2)   Our review of the
  taxation statutes involved and the question of law determined by the
  superior court is nondeferential and plenary.  See Thompson v. Dewey's S.
  Royalton, Inc., 169 Vt. 274, 276,