charitable property tax sales tax department revenue found that which fail to satisfy isn't fact which which are used to show charitable use and charitable  so if they can be so they be placed back in the community for use or they are broken down their constituents farmers and those constituent parts are then recycled and if some of these parts have value and those parts are so toxic materials the fee asked for from individuals and non profits is less than the amount which must ultimately pay to these and recite it also charges no fees to the library schools its disabled which in two thousand and nine year it issued a few waivers out where somebody came and said they were unable to pay the fee they were allowed to recycle their their electronics and there was no proof that which could not be an ongoing and viable entity if it did not receive a fee from individuals for those particular electrons with regard to the free computer program one of which says programs that ha calls helping out a question about sometimes helping with the manufacturing process this in two thousand and nine which would waive this service our army if somebody provided some type of justification or proof of inability to donate those and that would come in either the form of proof of low income status proof of better it or disability status or doctors or a letter requesting basically providing a reason why they're not able to provide the services moving into my main points first with regard to the requests for these service hours or recite the parties again stipulate this case was submitted to the ministry of law judge by stipulation and doc hording by the way were also there was no evidence in the record of somebody making a request for a waiver other than there were thirty individuals who received a free computer through which is christmas and in the record the the failure to advertise standing alone which was a reason that the court found that they were not sure what's to she's it was the fact that if they did not advertise supported their terminations that they were actually just writing up  found that failure to advertise a few waiver was not an indispensable requirement for charitable tax exemption and both of those cases went on to find that even though they didn't advertise that the waiver they were title to the exemption and those cases which considered the fact the ones that really the only ones i was able to locate consider it in the context of making a determination that it was actually right off bad debt as opposed same time around in that case but in the tax your question there was there was no way for granted and the court was persuaded by back they have this undisputed heavyweight policy place so i think director that they have essentially what's you described it pays you go policy you got that that was a performing arts center that would charge fees for for for some of the performance it's ridiculous to attend and that that testimony was twenty and there was no reference in that of how frequently it was used or if it was all along similar lines the service our army for this which is free computer program gail j found that the providing computers to the community could use charitable but requesting service factors can be taken into account and it's somewhat of a balancing test and and there's no particular factor in some of the cases state that some more recent cases a few cases of a state that there are some factors that are quite old more than others but it still comes down to you take all these factors into account and making a determination grid if there are that and considering the different aspects that those things can take be taken into account zero is that how is there any charitable of purpose for charitable activity in that regard now the administrative law judge and going back see to that that while these important services for the community found that there was a church because there was not yet and the case law out there is that a gift can also be anything that released people from disease documents from illinois will only statutes along with the u s environmental protection agency and these you show that improperly disposing of electronics can lead to in their landfills these toxic necessary to place the reuse or recycling of obsolete residential electronic parts as the preferred measure of strategy over sin ration and landfills so the act also on top of that not just stating that it is your lloyd needs to come up with a way to to manage these electronics it also provides for healthy provisions for those who violate some of the standards in there in the illinois department she's an environmental tech shoot and c is the one charged with enforcing so not only is wits to extent relieving people from disease suffering constrained by providing a way to get potentially toxic substances out of the environment the infill correct for those that would not be containing hazardous substances are not banned from landfills that would be correct to have that option and you have any information is what the percentage was in terms of the other recycling component of which activities as between those that complain hazardous materials for sewers those that did not contain hazardous materials there was no information in the record of the breakdown of what the electronics consisted of the only thing that was out there is  charge of the individual for any requests a fee for those those items and wave them except for the cathode ray tube which contain lead complete waiver in all cases or in the record volume two pair of page eleven paragraph three which is cited i believe in a web three ply brief there was ten thousand five hundred dollars worth of recycling fees charge and so that some measure of the recycling fees and we know from the record that there was three hundred eighty two thousand dollars worth of sales at the combined operation and that's a record for him to page forty there's three reasons related reasons why web is failed to clearly show that its recycling activities constitute charity i'll summarize the first reason is is this court said it prevented there is nothing charitable but selling something somebody  the thirty two three hundred eighty thousand dollars worth of sales were sales and even though those sales arguably to some extent benefit the environment by keeping things out of the landfills the fact that they are sales takes it out of charity the charitable activity you give you a for instance if it were so then any economic any sales that had a positive charitable impact if it was done by a not you positive environmental impact if it were done by a not for profit within automatically become charitable for instance a solar power manufacturer sold solar panel manufacturer if it was not for profit operation many of turned out to be not for profit if it were so porting to then any not for profit solar panel manufacturer would be charitable because solar power you know reduces the environmental burden of using coal for instance or an electronic electric car manufacturer of test low or a not for profit then under their argument because electric cars are supposedly you know less environmental impact than they would be charitable so selling something to somebody is not a charitable activity even if the impact is beneficial to do so you can look to that proposition for the method of excuse me the  salvation army case which is still good law contrary to webb's argument in that case the court ruled that accepting donated goods and then selling them was not a charitable activity even though the all the benefits went to the church of work of the salvation army now in that case the contrast of the salvation army sect to vittie versus st vincent de paul which also operated the thrift store and they noted that saint vincent de paul gave away most of its clothes to poor and there was only incidental sales here we have their argument they're saying essentially selling is charitable because we keep things out of the landfill that's just simply not the case the second reason why they failed to prove that their activity is charitable in regard to the pass through recycling that's the recycling that they charge fees for because they're environmentally hazardous they simply failed produce enough evidence in the three angels case and it's generally held that to show charitable operation you have to show your line item detail you have to have enough evidence for the court to look at the line item detail in the accounting and show that it's below cost in three angels i believe it was the sales of advertising time or it could have been the sales of  sales of videotapes that were religious in nature and therefore tell well you had an expert witness but you didn't have enough one item to tell for us to tell if you're selling it below cost if it's a low cost i arguably charitable if it's great even if it's not for profit but it's not charitable here as they admit in their brief you don't have any detail to know how much of these fees they are charging to individuals below their cost they charge to individuals and to church organizations below their recycling feed costs and to some they give away they do with no fees all but they're charging businesses and here you can't tell what they're charging business is it could be at cost or it could be above their cost we don't know and we don't know the ratio of the fees charged to businesses compared to the fees charged below cost to individuals so there's no way this court can tell whether they're breaking even on their recycling fees are they below cost in other words are they taking in fewer fees them they are ultimately paying to the recycler it's just not in the record it was by stipulation in the stipulation was insufficiently detail so that's the second reason the third reason is it's not relieving any burden of government web points to the electronic recycling act but all that act does is say that the government is going to regulate the recycling the government is not going to engage in recycling and the got the act anticipates that the actual recycling will be done by for profit organizations so clearly when the act itself says this function is going to be done by for profit organizations it is clearly not the axed the ass policy that the government is going to engage in recycling and in order to qualify as a reduction of the government burden the activity has to exemption on reducing the government burden because the government itself has undertaken to provide healthcare to certain fish and there was another case this isn't in my preferred college eyes the whisky versus and firemen organizations to alert the police they said that would be reducing the government burdened to allow that exemption would be permissible because that would reduce the government's burden of taking care of the widows and terms of the way it was done in the numbers that are involved there is i would thank you would agree a portion of that with operation that is charitable in terms of giving away the computers is if it's up to the court to determine whether or not in comparing the charitable versus non charitable origins of the operations that  that which should be entitled to an exemption under either of the of the taxes and other words should our focus be on the the big picture looking at the various components of the with software regimes to determine whether or not is primarily exclusively that means primarily used for a charitable purpose and that's where this court has to balance the amount charitable activity going on versus the amount of non church the activity and in th the dollars don't work out for them because they've only given away first of all we have to say that the twenty computers for which they required service hours were not sure because they were receiving something in return to the thirty that they gave away the value of those thirty computers at seventy five dollars each worked out to be about thirty shows two thousand three hundred fifty dollars that's at the record on page twenty nine versus revenue which includes both their sales revenue and their donations they received a four hundred seventy seven thousand dollars so two thousand and twenty three hundred dollars versus four hundred seventy seven thousand dollars clearly the property was not being used for charitable purposes which is the sixth method as criteria and there's a another problem with the computer giveaways which are the third and the fifth method is criteria the third one is dispensing charity to all the need and apply for it and the fifth is that no obstacles are placed in the way of the exception so the problem there was that as this court has already discussed with the appellate that there was a waiver program with no evidence that any waiver was given in two thousand nine hundred and even to qualify for the waiver you had to explain why you couldn't work fifty five hours a week to get a seventy five dollar computer my answer would be i can't afford to work for a dollar thirty six an hour i have other things to orientation program there's no explanation of how the orientation it's not like you know going to be a soup kitchen and having to hear you know some religious stuff before you well let me ask your question or kind of i think it's entirely possible first i think we have to acknowledge that keeping giving charity giving electronics to people that in this day and age who need them benefits those people like you know how can you operate without a computer main thing have to give away a lot more things so selling destroys especially when so it's you know like it's a three thousand dollars to twenty three hundred dollars worth of giveaways versus four hundred seventy purposes salvation army case health situation where it was just a thrift shop not thrift shop used its money to fund what was immediately charitable purposes at another location so it's kind of this different than what we have here where what took property could be exempt if it was exclusively used for distribution sale resale don't need good related activities and uses all the income from those activities to support the charitable religious beneficent excuse me activities of the owner whether or not there so sales does not destroy to charitable terminations is one is those sales are not done with  materials because when it started its operations back in st louis it initially was was only for bitching and putting it back in the community but it was getting so much back so many donations that it had to do something and it discovered that it could sell these certain parts to keep them out of the landfills and in doing so could cover its operating expenses so there was no view to a profit and i don't think that the three angels case specific holds that in order to show that there is no view to a profit you have to submit a line item breakdowns just an ak is the court found that because of what was being sold in that particular case had a propensity to and i don't agree with the department's position on this that that act is merely to set forth procedures for a commercially viable and it's i think that if you look at the findings  section some of the statements that are made in there putting that a management of this this waste stream which is the the fastest or a fast growing stream of non tiriel and then providing that that certain materials of disposed of people can be prosecuted or punished for those i feel that that goes directly reducing the instances of having to track them down and prosecute them i think is probably the strongest argument that it meets that the cases interpret being the statutory definition of what is  one other question i'm sorry and that is the they found that there wasn't any evidence presented to the st louis was so all these operations and doesn't pertain to water that in a situation where there are multiple the saudis that you present of there was a side of research that brochure that was put out into the community and dangle exposure was also used at st louis operations and it describes all of which is st louis operations in not only