Title: NBC-USA Hous., Inc.-Thirteen v. Levin

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
NBC-USA Hous., Inc.–Thirteen v. Levin, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2669.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2010-OHIO-2669 
NBC-USA HOUSING, INC. – THIRTEEN, APPELLANT, v. LEVIN,  
TAX COMMR., ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as NBC-USA Hous., Inc.–Thirteen v. Levin,  
Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-2669.] 
Real property tax — R.C. 5709.12(B) — Charitable-use exemption denied for 
government-subsidized housing. 
(No. 2009-1436 — June 9, 2010 — Decided June 16, 2010.) 
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals, No. 2007-A-110. 
__________________ 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, NBC-USA Housing, Inc.–Thirteen, d.b.a. New Salem 
Manor (“NBC-Thirteen”), appeals from the denial of its application to exempt its 
real property from taxation.  The property is improved with government-
subsidized apartments that NBC leases to low-income handicapped and aged 
tenants, and NBC seeks exemption on the ground that the property is “used 
exclusively for charitable purposes” pursuant to R.C. 5709.12(B).  The Tax 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Commissioner denied the exemption, the Board of Tax Appeals affirmed that 
denial, and NBC has appealed to the court. 
{¶ 2} We have recently addressed a claim of exemption by a different, 
but substantially similar, government-subsidized housing project.  NBC-USA 
Hous., Inc.–Five v. Levin, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2010-Ohio-1553, ___ N.E.2d ___ 
(“NBC-Five”).  In that case, we agreed with the BTA that the case law foreclosed 
the claim of charitable exemption.  Because the facts of the present case do not 
materially differ from those in NBC-Five, we reach the same conclusion in this 
case.  We therefore affirm the decision of the BTA. 
{¶ 3} As noted, the facts of the present case strongly parallel those of 
NBC-Five and need not be recited in detail here.  The property owner, NBC-
Thirteen, is a 501(c)(3) entity that is jointly operated by the National Baptist 
Convention and a local church, in this case New Salem Missionary Baptist.  The 
national convention owns the property through NBC-Thirteen, and the latter 
entity operates a federally subsidized apartment complex for low-income and 
aged or disabled tenants in northeast Columbus.  The local church sponsors the 
project pursuant to a memorandum of understanding with the national convention.  
The complex in this case consists of 25 one-bedroom units and eight studio 
apartments. 
{¶ 4} NBC-Thirteen and the local church also offer Bible study and 
social events for the tenants.  The landlord also coordinates the provision of 
medical services to the tenants by others.  The project reflects a concept of 
religious ministry on the part of the national convention and the local churches. 
{¶ 5} In support of its claim of charitable exemption, NBC-Thirteen first 
argues entitlement under the expanded charitable-use exemption at R.C. 
5709.121.  But just as in NBC-Five, the taxpayer in this case failed in its notice of 
appeal to the BTA to specify as error the commissioner’s failure to exempt the 
property under R.C. 5709.121, with the result that the claim under that section is 
January Term, 2010 
3 
 
jurisdictionally barred.  We hold that the expanded claim of exemption under 
5709.121 is barred in this case for the same reasons we set forth in NBC-Five. 
{¶ 6} NBC-Thirteen also contends that  Philada Home Fund v. Bd. of 
Tax Appeals (1966), 5 Ohio St.2d 135, 34 O.O.2d 262, 214 N.E.2d 431, does not 
bar a charitable exemption in this case for various reasons.  We addressed 
substantially the same contentions in NBC-Five, and we find they are equally 
without merit in the present case. 1  Accordingly, NBC-Thirteen’s claim must fail 
because of the “consistent and longstanding doctrine that a distinctly residential 
use of real property defeats a claim of charitable exemption, even where attendant 
circumstances indicate the existence of charitable motives.” (Emphasis sic.) NBC-
Five, 2010-Ohio-1553 ¶ 9.  
{¶ 7} For the foregoing reasons, the Tax Commissioner correctly denied 
NBC’s application for exemption, and the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully 
when it affirmed that denial.  We therefore affirm the decision of the BTA. 
Decision affirmed. 
BROWN, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and 
CUPP, JJ., concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurs separately. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concurring. 
{¶ 8} I reluctantly concur for the reasons set out in my concurring 
opinion in NBC-USA Hous., Inc.–Five v. Levin, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  2010-Ohio-
1553, ___ N.E.2d ___. 
                                                 
1.  NBC-Thirteen’s third proposition of law states that the BTA improperly relied on testimony 
that is not in the record, but NBC fails to elaborate this point.  Under the same proposition of law, 
NBC argues that the BTA erred by not accepting at face value some of its witness’s testimony 
regarding ownership and the involvement of the local church in the housing project.   But any 
error in this regard would be inconsequential for the reason we set forth in NBC-Five.  NBC-Five, 
2010-Ohio-1553, ¶ 13, fn. 2.    
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
___________________ 
 
Karen H. Bauernschmidt Co., L.P.A., Karen H. Bauernschmidt, and 
Charles J. Bauernschmidt, for appellant. 
 
Richard Cordray, Attorney General, and Alan P. Schwepe, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Richard A. Levin. 
 
Rich & Gillis Law Group, L.L.C., and Mark H. Gillis, for appellee 
Columbus City School District Board of Education. 
______________________