review on that question is clearly here and a decision is clear yes when there's evidence supporting reversal and the record is left with a definite and far conviction that a mistake has been committed maintenance and property taxes and he is responsible for the things that are generally associated with ownership well let's look at those each one by one paying rent is not an addition of ownership it's just not everybody course it calls coverly which was the nonexempt less or has rented the property to lincoln for forty five thousand dollars plus payments including payment of real estate tax the payment of the real estate tax for part of the so on the four things played out by the department paying rent insurance maintenance property taxes all those things are completely wrong on the law and the facts so i would submit that that's a taxes the less the the center the center has to pay a thousand dollars a month if it loses its it stops acting as it would have to do that it wraps however the lease has a specific so how do they claim an exemption they are responsible for the payment of the real estate taxes and they're not except they are not exempt on it because this is a sale leaseback arrangement used as an alternative financing which under his of people question here really is the property tax exempt right that is part of that idea of if somebody sends me a tax bill on your property i get to go and say hey this isn't mine if you're right well that's right they're claiming an exemption they're claiming for tax purposes actually by law all kings orchard could claim that they are actually the owner of the property and that fight for an exemption but that's not what happened in this case you'd have an argument to make well and i understand what you're getting at the problem is that when you look at coles cumberland where the court went through all the factors that worked a but thing from their perspective i understand the work is there the economic benefit be derived other than the potential of a future economic benefit because they have some control over what ultimately may happen in such a way that we preserve the issue of ownership with the community so that we had a client came to us and said they need money and i want to give it to them but i don't want to just give them one hundred grand because of their past history i'm afraid they're going to get more ways on their property which is what they did they took out loans to pay their operating expenses and they're not going to pay their loans back then they're going to go out of business how can i do this to prevent that and we look to all ospital and it was almost the exact factors that were present hospitals are also present this is what they're saying that unless it's an alternative financing arrangement still doesn't count even if it still has all those facts and i guess my response that is well what else  mates they support i'm eric true day assistant attorney general and i represent the department of revenue i wanted to start off with the question justice think that as alan saying i think that's the right way to look at this case there's no doubt that the when claiming it when than not when the exact entity itself is not claiming an exemption i'm not aware of such a case if you start with i'm for example a christian action ministry you know it was the church that was claiming i th sixty five is somewhat difficult to read but if you look at the three the roman numerals that the code does set forth weights that you can preserve an existing exam showing how things there are other found that ok zero is the legal title only is the legal owner of the property and they're not exempt entity how can they claim exemption i do think that naturally flows and again if you look at the if you look at their reasoning behind all of the cases in which they found an exemption even though the party that exempt entity did not walk title it was almost always because they were going to have to it was a charitable organization that was applying for an exemption they were going to have to pay the taxes if the exemption wasn't found here ok i was going to have to pay the taxes there's no burden on the charitable organization and that's the whole idea  title is not enough to be down there for tax purposes but again if you look at the cases the context of that statement it's usually involving something like the land trust where the trustee are they have a story you're saying a sale in respect is not good and i'm not saying that a selling leaseback is not good but i'm saying is that the book title is the starting point and then under four hospitals you can analyze a particular agreement and see whether or not that individual sam leaseback agreement is an alternative financing place so it's but but my broader point was simply that in who also can control and the right to benefits isn't that lease it's only a fifteen year period so after that point of view is the center of the property the center has the right to purchase in the in the september twenty ninth two thousand and eight down down they have an exclusive right to purchase in the original version of the lease i it's simply a right of first refusal and they have limited rights against a third party if a cell were to take place so there's there's no ok over tains a substantial ability to alienate the property both during the course of the original lease as well as once single term lease expires know wants to solve probably they can do but again the original version of the lease gives the center the right of first refusal there was substantial testimony at the administrative hearing that that that the center was not going to be able to buy the proper y so if ok oh we're to run into financial difficulty or so we're simply to change its mind about its relationship with the center nothing would stop it from selling it to a third party and that's you know l a nation is one of the primary incidents of ownership and under the  i i must confess i'm not sure i would like an exclusive right that you know i could i could speculate as to that but i'm not sure i'm on that with you or i but it just gets at the point that that the center is not like your hospital are not like that charitable organization christian action ministry this property is not going to be eventually purchased by the center you know the position to realistically ever again the key is control and the right to benefits it seems to me that the center as complete control over this property it has the right of all benefits i can't think of a single benefit the center does not have that well again l s e would usually have the right of the benefits of the property so in that case they're not that different from ordinary alessi will vary so yes respect is just fine syrian security agreement it wasn't it didn't retain any other interest that would make it the owner here ok oh does have substantial interest and therefore the property has a indicate they can sell the property  without you know without with limited restriction there's only there's not a continuum right to renew the lease it's just a one term fifteen lease and again with the center being and then i think the court and then at least a point of confusion about rent out there i think the fact that they the lease was tripped on that show that in essence the agreement was just that those were white if you had purchased a property using an invention mortgage those are the types of applications that you would incur as the buyer or in a conventional mortgage so by analogy to christian basically you know conventionally finance transaction they might not have been able to do it in the standard way but that's the basic intent and purpose of the agreement and if you look at the remit that's the effect that all of these professions have then we're not going to treat them differently but here is just action ministry that we don't want to penalize a charitable institution because they want able to do a transaction using conventional financing that rationale is out of place here in addition as been pointing out ok could have structured itself as an example and city hall can you know somewhat with that you could have done a thousand things differently but there's one other question is whether these things work and i have a lot of trouble distinguishing this case the whole hospital i live in go through some of the factors and agreement i mean the the first as as i indicated was that the the lease was triple that such that the charitable institution the lessee was obligated to pay the real estate taxes insurance maintenance another factor of with that that to me that that makes this a better case for the exemption than the think the difficulty that we're having here in deciding how much weight to apply to one factor versus the other as shows that the department's decision was not clearly erroneous it's something about which we could disagree with but it's not obviously wrong because there are certainly incident of ownership that would factor in the favor of the center but again if you look at the cases in which they have found that the eagle title was not enough to be the owner for tax purposes the person that h because there was a reasonable basis for the decision you could disagree about the weight that particular factors were given but it's not a decision that's so obviously wrong that that it can purpose of this is to keep this center going as a as a charitable institution well that that may have been one of the purposes that mr power had again we don't know why he decided to structure of in a way that a lesser flame to exemption this case would not be before us if i fail an exam density you know so it seems to me you keep saying they could have done this they could have done that isn't now as mr pie says it isn't that the position you took during the negotiations here then they would go and change the leas of extra record assertions hour in addition you know that whatever the department may have asked during negotiations the first place to look at statute the statute says charitable i'm do want to get back to the point you raise how many requirements are not there to require myths there's charitable ownership and there's charitable use the burden is on them to show that they're entitled to the to the exemption the burden is not on the department  use is undisputed power for example that l j determined that ok of it napco to record on their attempts to obtain conventional financing and also fail to note the record on their choice in the title that's what basis and i guess what i'm getting at is every single case that i could find the exact entity applied for