Title: Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Attleboro

State: massachusetts

Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 
revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 
volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical 
error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 
Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 
Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-
1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us 
 
SJC-12021 
 
SHRINE OF OUR LADY OF LA SALETTE INC.  vs.  BOARD OF ASSESSORS 
OF ATTLEBORO. 
 
 
 
Suffolk.     December 5, 2016. - March 22, 2017. 
 
Present:  Gants, C.J., Lenk, Hines, Gaziano, Lowy, & Budd, JJ. 
 
 
Taxation, Real estate tax:  abatement, Real estate tax:  
exemption, Real estate tax:  classification of property.  
Real Property, Tax. 
 
 
 
 
Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board. 
 
 
The Supreme Judicial Court granted an application for 
direct appellate review. 
 
 
 
Diane C. Tillotson (Ryan P. McManus also present) for the 
taxpayer. 
 
Michael R. Siddall (James M. Hannifan also present) for 
board of assessors of Attleboro. 
 
Heidi A. Nadel, for Massachusetts Council of Churches & 
others, amici curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
Felicia H. Ellsworth, Eric L. Hawkins, & William R. 
O'Reilly, Jr., for Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston & others, 
amici curiae, submitted a brief. 
 
 
 
GANTS, C.J.  This is an appeal from a decision of the 
Appellate Tax Board (board) concerning property in Attleboro 
 
 
2 
owned by the taxpayer, Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. 
(Shrine).  The Shrine sought a tax abatement from the board, 
claiming that certain portions of its property were exempt from 
taxation under G. L. c. 59, § 5, Eleventh (Clause Eleventh), the 
exemption for "houses of religious worship."  The crux of the 
appeal is the scope of this exemption.  For the reasons set 
forth below, we conclude that property is exempt from taxation 
under Clause Eleventh where the dominant purpose of the 
questioned portion of property is religious worship or 
instruction, or purposes connected with it.  Applying this 
principle, we conclude that the board erred when it found that 
the Shrine's "welcome center" and maintenance building were not 
exempt under Clause Eleventh.  We affirm its denial of an 
abatement for the former convent that the Shrine leased to a 
nonprofit organization for use as a safe house for battered 
women, and for the wildlife sanctuary that was exclusively 
managed by the Massachusetts Audubon Society in accordance with 
a conservation easement.  The safe house and wildlife sanctuary 
might have been exempt from real estate taxation under G. L. 
c. 59, § 5, Third (Clause Third), as the property of a 
benevolent or charitable organization devoted to charitable use, 
had the Shrine satisfied the filing requirements for such an 
exemption, but they were not exempt under Clause Eleventh.1 
                     
 
1 We acknowledge the amicus brief jointly submitted by the 
 
 
3 
 
Background.  The Shrine is a Catholic religious 
organization affiliated with the Missionaries of Our Lady of La 
Salette (missionaries).  The missionaries are members of the 
Catholic faith who are inspired by what they believe to have 
been an apparition of the Virgin Mary (Our Lady) to two children 
in the village of La Salette, France, in 1846.  Following that 
event, supporters erected a shrine in La Salette to provide the 
many pilgrims who began traveling there each year a space to 
express their devotion.  Since then, members of the Catholic 
faith from around the world have erected shrines honoring Our 
Lady in their respective countries.  Although there are a number 
of these shrines throughout the world, each country is permitted 
only one designated national shrine.  The Shrine in Attleboro, 
which opened in 1953, became the national shrine for the United 
States in 2009.  Accordingly, thousands of people visit the 
Shrine each year, ranging from the lone visitor who stays for 
                                                                  
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Boston, the Roman Catholic Bishop 
of Fall River, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, and the 
Roman Catholic Bishop of Worcester.  We also acknowledge the 
amicus brief jointly submitted by the Massachusetts Council of 
Churches; CAIR-Massachusetts; the Emanuel Gospel Center; the 
Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts; the Episcopal Diocese of 
Western Massachusetts; the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural 
Center; the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of 
Christ; the New England Conference of the United Methodist 
Church; the New England Region of the Unitarian Universalist 
Association; the New England Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran 
Church in America; Our Lady of Fatima Shrine, Holliston, 
Massachusetts; and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism; 
and joined by the New England Yearly Meeting of Friends and the 
Worcester Islamic Center. 
 
 
4 
only a moment to thousands of international pilgrims who stay 
for most of the day. 
 
The Shrine is a Massachusetts not-for-profit organization 
whose purposes are described in its articles of organization as 
follows: 
"To promote the devotion to Our Lady of La Salette through 
the organization of public pilgrimages and through the 
administration of the Sacraments of the Church; to provide 
spiritual guidance to the pilgrims visiting the Shrine; to 
provide food and housing, if necessary, for the proper care 
of the pilgrims; to offer to said pilgrims the opportunity 
of purchasing religious articles and books of all kinds; to 
seek contributions for the development and support of said 
Shrine; to use any or all of said funds for the religious 
education of young men training for religious and 
missionary priesthood; to provide funds to further foreign 
missions; and to do such further acts as are necessary and 
incidental to the carrying out of the purposes hereinbefore 
set forth." 
 
 
In keeping with the Shrine's purposes, visitors and 
pilgrims can participate in a range of activities on the 
Shrine's property.  Each day, the Shrine holds a Mass and 
provides the opportunity for confession.  In addition, it offers 
specialized prayer services and prayer groups at various times.  
Each year, nearly 400,000 visitors make their way to the Shrine 
between Thanksgiving and early January for its Festival of 
Lights, during which the Shrine erects Christmas displays and 
hangs approximately 400,000 Christmas lights.  In addition to 
these events, the Shrine hosts a variety of other functions and 
activities, including retreats, concerts, and fundraisers. 
 
 
5 
 
In 2012, the fiscal year at issue, the Shrine carried out 
its operations on 199 acres of property it owned in the city of 
Attleboro (city).  This case arises out of the city assessor's 
determination that the Shrine owed property taxes in the amount 
of $92,292.98, based on a valuation of $12,815,800, the taxable 
portion of which was valued at $4,955,740.  The Shrine paid its 
property tax, with interest, and in January, 2013, filed an 
application for abatement, which the city's board of assessors 
(assessors) denied in April, 2013.  The Shrine appealed to the 
board, arguing that all of its property was exempt under Clause 
Eleventh.2 
 
The board, for purposes of its analysis, divided the 
Shrine's property into eight distinct portions:  (1) the 
Shrine's church, (2) the indoor and outdoor chapels, (3) the 
monastery, (4) the retreat center, (5) the welcome center and 
surrounding land, (6) the maintenance building, (7) the former 
convent, which was leased to a nonprofit organization that uses 
the building as a safe house for battered women (safe house), 
and (8) approximately 110 acres of "unimproved land" known as 
                     
 
2 The Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette Inc. (Shrine) also 
claimed an exemption under G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third, which 
exempts from taxation the real and personal property of a 
"charitable organization" where the property is "occupied by it 
or its officers for the purposes for which it is organized."  
However, the Shrine later waived this claim after conceding that 
it had failed to file the forms required to obtain such an 
exemption. 
 
 
6 
the Attleboro Springs Wildlife Sanctuary (wildlife sanctuary).  
The board determined that the first four portions of the 
property (the church, the chapels, the monastery, and the 
retreat center, including the surrounding land and parking 
areas) were exempt under Clause Eleventh.  It determined that 
the welcome center was only partially exempt and that the 
maintenance building, safe house, and wildlife sanctuary were 
fully taxable.  The Shrine appeals these latter four 
determinations, so we describe at length the board's findings 
regarding these portions of the property. 
1.  Welcome center.  A typical pilgrimage to the Shrine 
begins in the welcome center, where pilgrims and visitors are 
shown a video presentation about Our Lady of La Salette.  After 
a visit to the Shrine church to pray or to the chapel for 
confession, visitors return to the cafeteria in the welcome 
center for lunch.3  The cafeteria also "functions as a soup 
kitchen serving free meals to the poor every Monday, and it is 
used on occasion as overflow space in which to host a lecture or 
workshop offered by the [S]hrine."  Visitors can also visit the 
"bistro" in the welcome center, where a more limited menu of 
food is available for purchase from noon to 5 P.M. each day.  
                     
 
3 The cafeteria does not charge pilgrims for lunch, apart 
from a donation fee made in connection with the pilgrimage, and 
it is not generally open to the public to purchase meals, except 
during the Christmas Festival of Lights and during the season of 
Lent. 
 
 
7 
The Shrine's gift shop is located in the welcome center, where 
visitors can purchase religious items such as books, statues, 
and rosary beads.  The Shrine also offers other religious 
lectures and programs in various spaces within the welcome 
center. 
In addition, the Shrine uses the welcome center and 
surrounding land for various fundraising activities, including 
"yard sales, a carnival, a circus, a clambake, and a Christmas 
Bazaar."  The Shrine sometimes hosted these events in 
partnership with third parties, including various artists, 
vendors, and, in at least one instance, a for-profit 
entertainment company.  The events yielded various amounts for 
the Shrine, ranging from $2,000 to $10,000.4 
The Shrine also grants access to the welcome center and 
surrounding land to various public, religious, and nonprofit 
groups for various events, and to private groups and individuals 
for private functions.  For instance, the welcome center has 
been used by the city as a polling station during elections, by 
the Lions Club for an antique car show fundraiser, by a Native 
American group for a powwow, and by the American Red Cross for a 
blood drive.  In addition, the Shrine has leased the welcome 
                     
 
4 The Shrine operated the carnival in connection with a for-
profit entertainment company.  The company received sixty per 
cent of the profits, and the Shrine received forty per cent, 
yielding $10,000 for the Shrine. 
 
 
8 
center to "a family for a baptismal party; . . . a family for a 
wedding rehearsal dinner; . . . and . . . a for-profit 
transportation company for a presentation on religious tours and 
travel."  Typically, these groups made donations ranging from 
$200 to $1,000 to the Shrine in return for the use of the space, 
but the Shrine allowed the American Red Cross to use the space 
for free. 
The board determined that the Shrine "used [the welcome 
center and surrounding land] in part for 'religious worship or 
instruction,' and in part for other purposes, such as 
fundraising activities and private functions."  The board found 
that the assessors were correct to tax the welcome center using 
a prorated or apportioned basis, wherein the assessors 
calculated taxes due according to the percentage of time each 
portion was used for secular rather than religious activity.  
The board agreed with the assessors' determination that the 
welcome center and surrounding land were taxable at forty per 
cent of their value and sixty per cent exempt. 
2.  Maintenance building.  The Shrine used the maintenance 
building to store "display items for the Festival of Lights 
during the off season; inventory for the gift shop; and golf 
carts and other maintenance vehicles and equipment used on the 
subject property."  The board found the building fully taxable 
because it was not used for "'religious worship or instruction' 
 
 
9 
within the meaning of Clause Eleventh," and it was "immaterial" 
whether the building furthered the Shrine's charitable purposes 
if those purposes did not constitute religious worship or 
instruction. 
3.  Safe house.  The Shrine leased the former convent to a 
nonprofit organization that uses the building as a safe house 
for battered women.  The board found it fully taxable because it 
was no longer a parsonage and was not being used for "religious 
worship or instruction."  The board noted that the safe house's 
furtherance of a charitable purpose may have qualified this 
portion of the property for an exemption under Clause Third, had 
the Shrine filed the required documents for this exemption.  See 
note 2, supra. 
4.  Wildlife sanctuary.  The board found that, in 2009, the 
Shrine granted the Massachusetts Audubon Society a conservation 
easement over the wildlife sanctuary,5 and that organization 
subsequently managed it in accordance with the easement "as an 
area containing open space and walking trails and available to 
the public for passive recreation."  The board found that the 
wildlife sanctuary was not being used for religious worship or 
instruction, and noted that its furtherance of a charitable 
                     
 
5 The Shrine later transferred the fee interest to the 
Massachusetts Audubon Society, but was the owner of record for 
the fiscal year at issue. 
 
 
10 
purpose may have qualified it for an exemption under Clause 
Third had the Shrine filed the required documents. 
The board concluded "that the assessors properly exempted 
so much of the subject property that qualified for the exemption 
under Clause Eleventh," and that the Shrine "failed to prove its 
entitlement to an abatement."  The Shrine appealed from the 
board's determination, and we granted its application for direct 
appellate review. 
 
Discussion.  General Laws c. 59, § 2, articulates the 
general rule that "[a]ll property, real and personal, . . . 
unless expressly exempt, shall be subject to taxation."  The 
specific exemptions from taxation are enumerated in G. L. c. 59, 
§ 5.  At issue here is the interpretation of the scope of Clause 
Eleventh, which exempts from taxation: 
"[H]ouses of religious worship owned by, or held in trust 
for the use of, any religious organization, and the pews 
and furniture and each parsonage so owned . . . for the 
exclusive benefit of the religious organizations, . . . but 
such exemption shall not, except as herein provided, extend 
to any portion of any such house of religious worship 
appropriated for purposes other than religious worship or 
instruction.  The occasional or incidental use of such 
property by an organization exempt from taxation under the 
provisions of [26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)] of the Federal 
Internal Revenue Code shall not be deemed to be an 
appropriation for purposes other than religious worship or 
instruction." 
 
 
Exemption statutes, such as Clause Eleventh, are "strictly 
construed, and the burden lies with the party seeking an 
exemption to demonstrate that it qualifies according to the 
 
 
11 
express terms or the necessary implication of a statute 
providing the exemption."  New England Forestry Found., Inc. v. 
Assessors of Hawley, 468 Mass. 138, 148-149 (2014), citing 
Milton v. Ladd, 348 Mass. 762, 765 (1965).  "We uphold findings 
of fact of the board that are supported by substantial evidence.  
We review conclusions of law, including questions of statutory 
construction, de novo."  New England Forestry Found., Inc., 
supra at 149, citing Bridgewater State Univ. Found. v. Assessors 
of Bridgewater, 463 Mass. 154, 156 (2012).  We give weight to 
the board's interpretation of tax statutes, however, because the 
"board is an agency charged with administering the tax law and 
has 'expertise in tax matters.'"  AA Transp. Co. v. Commissioner 
of Revenue, 454 Mass. 114, 119 (2009), quoting RHI Holdings, 
Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 51 Mass. App. Ct. 681, 685 
(2001).  But "principles of deference . . . are not principles 
of abdication."  Commissioner of Revenue v. Gillette Co., 454 
Mass. 72, 75-76 (2009), quoting Duarte v. Commissioner of 
Revenue, 451 Mass. 399, 411 (2008).  "Ultimately, . . . the 
interpretation of a statute is a matter for the courts."  Onex 
Communications Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 457 Mass. 419, 
424 (2010). 
 
In interpreting the scope of Clause Eleventh, we recognize 
that a house of religious worship is more than the chapel used 
for prayer and the classrooms used for religious instruction.  
 
 
12 
It includes the parking lot where congregants park their 
vehicles, the anteroom where they greet each other and leave 
their coats and jackets, the parish hall where they congregate 
in religious fellowship after prayer services, the offices for 
the clergy and staff, and the storage area where the extra 
chairs are stored for high holy days.  In some houses of 
religious worship, all of these portions of property (apart from 
the parking area) may be located with the chapel in a single 
building; in others with larger congregations, they may be 
located in multiple buildings, some adjoining the chapel, some 
standing alone.  We have long recognized that all of these 
portions of property are exempt from taxation under Clause 
Eleventh even if no religious worship occurs within these 
spaces; it suffices that they are used for "purposes connected 
with" religious worship, Proprietors of the S. Congregational 
Meetinghouse in Lowell v. Lowell, 1 Met. 538, 541 (1840), or, 
otherwise stated, purposes that "normally accompany and 
supplement the religious work of a parish."  Assessors of 
Framingham v. First Parish in Framingham, 329 Mass. 212, 215 
(1952). 
 
The Shrine is indisputably a house of religious worship, 
but it is not a typical one, because it is not a parish with a 
congregation but a national shrine of the Missionaries where 
thousands of pilgrims and visitors come for prayer, confession, 
 
 
13 
religious retreats, and religious education, and, during the 
Christmas season, to find religious inspiration from its 
Festival of Lights.  We address separately the four portions of 
property at issue on appeal. 
 
1.  Welcome center.  The board recognized that the welcome 
center was used at times for "religious worship or instruction" 
because religious lectures or programs were offered, but it also 
found that the welcome center was used for purposes other than 
"religious worship or instruction," such as fundraising 
activities, including a Christmas Bazaar.  The board also found 
that "religious worship or instruction" did not occur in the 
bistro or gift shop, "though they may have served to promote the 
[Shrine's] religious purposes in general."  The board concluded 
that, where properties owned by religious organizations are used 
only in part for "religious worship or instruction," Clause 
Eleventh "allows" them "to be taxed on an apportioned basis." 
 
The board defined far too narrowly the scope of the 
religious exemption.  A video presentation about Our Lady of La 
Salette plainly is religious instruction.  Pilgrims and visitors 
who spend hours at the Shrine need to eat and drink, so the 
cafeteria and bistro are "connected with" religious worship, and 
"accompany and supplement" the religious work of the Shrine by 
sparing pilgrims and visitors the need to bring their own food 
and drink or leave the Shrine in order to find it.  See 
 
 
14 
Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass. at 215; Proprietors of the S. 
Congregational Meetinghouse in Lowell, 1 Met. at 541.  Those who 
are inspired by the Shrine may obtain religious objects and 
books at the gift shop that might allow them to continue their 
religious worship and instruction when they leave.  The fact 
that money earned from the cafeteria, bistro, and gift shop may 
help pay for the Shrine's expenses does not remove them from the 
realm of religious worship and instruction; even a church cannot 
live on prayer alone. 
 
Nor is it appropriate for the board to tax the welcome 
center "on an apportioned basis" based on the assessor's 
estimation of the percentage of nonreligious use of the welcome 
center.  By the board's logic, a church whose parish hall is 
used for occasional bake sales, rummage sales, and holiday 
bazaars to raise money for the church, and the occasional 
wedding reception, could have its parish hall taxed on an 
apportioned basis based on an assessor's estimation of the 
percentage of its use that is not for "religious worship or 
instruction."  Clause Eleventh, however, provides that the 
exemption shall not "extend to any portion of any such house of 
religious worship appropriated for purposes other than religious 
worship or instruction."  By choosing the word "appropriated," 
the Legislature expressed its intent that a portion of a house 
of religious worship shall either be exempt or not exempt, based 
 
 
15 
on its "dominant purpose."  See Assessors of Framingham, 329 
Mass. at 216 ("[t]he right of exemption from taxation . . . 
depends on the dominant purpose for which the rooms are 
maintained and their actual use for that purpose"). 
 
The dominant purpose test thus considers, as to each 
portion of church property, whether its dominant purpose is 
religious worship or instruction or connected with religious 
worship or instruction (and is therefore exempt from taxation), 
or whether its dominant purpose is something other than 
religious worship or instruction (and therefore has been 
"appropriated for purposes other than religious worship or 
instruction").  See Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass. at 216; 
G. L. c. 59, § 5, Eleventh.  See generally 4 W.W. Bassett, W.C. 
Durham, Jr., & R.T. Smith, Religious Organizations and the Law 
§ 17:90 (2013) ("primary use" standard has been "almost 
universally adopted" by States in determining property tax 
exemptions for religious institutions). 
 
We do not infer from the revision of Clause Eleventh in 
1980 (which added the provision that "[t]he occasional or 
incidental use of such property by an organization exempt from 
taxation under the provisions of [26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code] shall not be deemed to be an 
appropriation for purposes other than religious worship or 
instruction") that the Legislature intended that the occasional 
 
 
16 
or incidental use of property by a person or entity other than a 
nonprofit organization shall be deemed such an appropriation.  
See 1980 House Doc. No. 6373.  The addition of this provision 
should be read to reflect nothing more than a legislative intent 
to assure religious institutions that they do not risk their tax 
exemption by allowing nonprofit organizations occasionally to 
use their facilities for meetings and events.  It cannot 
reasonably be read to suggest a rejection of the dominant 
purpose test articulated prior to this statutory revision in 
Assessors of Framingham, which affirmed that the exemption 
applied to a church building that had occasionally been used for 
wedding receptions, auction sales, and card parties, as well as 
meetings of organizations that were likely not tax-exempt 
nonprofit organizations.  See Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass. 
at 213-214, 216. 
 
In conclusion, the board committed an error of law in 
failing to apply the dominant purpose test to the welcome 
center.  Because the dominant purpose of the welcome center is 
"connected with" religious worship and instruction, and 
"accompan[ies] and supplement[s]" the religious work of the 
Shrine, we conclude that it should have been entirely exempt 
under Clause Eleventh.  See Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass. 
at 215; Proprietors of the S. Congregational Meetinghouse in 
Lowell, 1 Met. at 541. 
 
 
17 
 
2.  Maintenance building.  The board found that the 
maintenance building is used to store display items for the 
Festival of Lights during the off season, inventory for the gift 
shop, and maintenance vehicles used on the Shrine's property.  
In essence, the maintenance building is the equivalent for a 
larger church of the storage cellar or storage shed of a smaller 
church, and is similarly connected with the religious work of 
the Shrine.  The Festival of Lights during the Christmas season 
is part of the Shrine's celebration of Christmas, so the storage 
of lights in the off season is a purpose connected with 
religious worship.  See Assessors of Framingham, 329 Mass. at 
216.  As earlier noted, the gift shop is also connected with 
religious worship and instruction, so the storage of its 
inventory is a purpose connected with such worship and 
instruction.  Maintenance vehicles assist Shrine staff in 
maintaining the Shrine and its grounds, so the storage of these 
vehicles is also connected to religious worship and instruction.  
The board correctly found that the parking lot of the Shrine was 
exempt from taxation; the building where the maintenance 
vehicles are kept that are used to clear that parking lot from 
snow and ice in the winter were equally exempt.  Because the 
dominant purpose of the maintenance building is connected with 
the religious worship and instruction offered at the Shrine, we 
 
 
18 
conclude that the board erred in declining to find it exempt 
from taxation under Clause Eleventh. 
 
3.  Safe house.  The Shrine argues that the portion of its 
property leased to a nonprofit organization and used as a safe 
house for battered women should have been exempt because it was 
incidental to the over-all use of the Shrine's property as a 
place of religious worship and instruction, and because it 
furthered the Shrine's religious mission of performing 
charitable deeds in the community.  We disagree for three 
reasons. 
 
First, we decline to adopt the Shrine's argument that the 
dominant purpose test is an "all or nothing" test regarding the 
exemption of church property, i.e., that an assessor must look 
at the entirety of a church's property and determine whether the 
dominant purpose of that property is religious worship or 
instruction, such that the entirety of the property is either 
exempt or not.  Clause Eleventh, in providing that the exemption 
shall not "extend to any portion of any such house of religious 
worship appropriated for purposes other than religious worship 
or instruction," expressly recognizes that the exemption 
analysis must focus separately on each "portion" of a house of 
religious worship.  This court conducted such an analysis in 
Proprietors of the S. Congregational Meetinghouse in Lowell, 1 
Met. at 540-541, where the second floor of a building erected by 
 
 
19 
a "religious society" was used as a place of worship and a 
vestry, and six "tenements" on the first floor were rented as 
commercial stores, with the income from the rentals used to pay 
the money borrowed to purchase the land and erect the building.  
The court held that "the exemption in the statute extended to 
that part of the property only which was used as a place of 
worship, and for purposes connected with it . . . such as the 
vestry, the furnace and the like . . . but did not extend to 
separate tenements used for purposes exclusively secular."  Id. 
at 541.  The appropriate analysis focuses on whether the 
dominant purpose of each portion of the property, rather than 
the property as a whole, is religious worship or instruction. 
Second, we recognize that religion embraces charitable 
deeds and providing help to those in need, but we also recognize 
that the Legislature did not include within the scope of Clause 
Eleventh "any portion of any . . . house of religious worship 
appropriated for purposes other than religious worship and 
instruction" (emphasis added).  Here, the nonprofit 
organization's use of the property as a safe house was 
"permanent and exclusive," see Assessors of Framingham, 329 
Mass. at 216, rather than "occasional or incidental."  See G. L. 
c. 59, § 5, Eleventh.  Where a house of religious worship grants 
a "permanent and exclusive" lease of a portion of its property 
to a nonprofit organization to perform a charitable mission, 
 
 
20 
rather than religious worship or instruction, we conclude that 
this portion of its property was "appropriated for purposes 
other than religious worship and instruction" under Clause 
Eleventh. 
Our conclusion is strongly supported by the legislative 
history regarding the amendment to Clause Eleventh enacted in 
1980 that inserted the provision making clear that the 
"occasional or incidental use" by a nonprofit organization of a 
portion of a house of religious worship's property "shall not be 
deemed to be an appropriation for purposes other than religious 
worship or instruction."  The original version of the bill would 
have extended the exemption to "any portion . . . appropriated 
for the purpose of any [nonprofit organization]."  1980 House 
Doc. No. 3699.  The Governor returned the bill to the 
Legislature, declaring that he agreed with the bill's underlying 
purpose to ensure religious institutions the ability to allow 
"charitable organizations of the community [to] use their rooms 
or facilities without fear of exemption loss," but was concerned 
that the bill was "much too broad" because "[i]t would grant tax 
exemption to the permanent and exclusive non-religious use of 
church owned property."  See 1980 House Doc. No. 6373.  The 
resulting amendment allows nonprofit organizations, many of 
which are charitable organizations, to use property owned by 
houses of religious worship without risk to the exemption so 
 
 
21 
long as that use was merely occasional and incidental.  Compare 
G. L. c. 59, § 5, Eleventh, as amended through St. 1980, c. 411, 
with 1980 House Doc. No. 3699. 
 
Third, the Legislature expressly provides an exemption from 
taxation for the real and personal property of a charitable 
organization occupied for a charitable purpose, but that 
exemption is under Clause Third, not Clause Eleventh.  Had the 
Shrine timely filed the documents required under Clause Third, 
it might have obtained an exemption for the safe house.  The 
Shrine cannot avoid its obligation to file these documents under 
Clause Third by claiming that charitable deeds fall within the 
rubric of religious worship and education under Clause Eleventh. 
4.  Wildlife sanctuary.  For essentially the same reasons 
that we affirm the board's determination regarding the safe 
house, we affirm its determination that the wildlife sanctuary 
was fully taxable.  The Shrine notes that it used the sanctuary 
for meditative walks and granted a conservation easement to the 
Massachusetts Audubon Society in 2009 to "promote . . .  
ecospirituality and reconciliation with the creation."  The 
easement grants general rights of access to the public while 
reserving access rights for those affiliated with the Shrine.  
According to the Shrine, the easement's express purpose, coupled 
with the Shrine's use of the property for meditative walks, 
establish that the Shrine used this property for religious 
 
 
22 
worship, and any secular use of the property was incidental to 
this purpose.  But under the terms of the easement, the Shrine 
transferred to the Society the "exclusive right and 
responsibility to manage the [wildlife sanctuary]" and perform a 
range of conservation-related activities (emphasis added).  This 
grant of access to a nonprofit organization, coupled with 
unrestricted public access rights, represents a "permanent and 
exclusive" appropriation of this portion of the Shrine's 
property for a dominant charitable purpose. 
We appreciate that a wildlife sanctuary may be for some a 
spiritual sanctuary, much as working in a safe house may be for 
some the realization of a spiritual mission.  But the 
Legislature did not intend either a wildlife sanctuary or a safe 
house, when used and operated as they were here, to qualify as a 
house of religious worship.  Where their dominant purpose is 
charitable, both might have been exempt from taxation under 
Clause Third, but neither was exempt under Clause Eleventh. 
 
Conclusion.  For the reasons stated above, we reverse the 
board's determination under Clause Eleventh that the welcome 
center was taxable in part and that the maintenance building was 
taxable in full, and affirm the board's determination that the 
safe house and the wildlife sanctuary were subject to taxation.  
We remand the case to the board for a determination regarding 
the amount of the abatement. 
 
 
23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
So ordered.