IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Helping Enjoying and :

Loving People :

2 Salvation Ministries, Inc., :

:

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 558 C.D. 2017

: Argued: June 7, 2018

Delaware County Board of :

Assessment Appeals :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: July 9, 2018

Helping Enjoying and Loving People 2 Salvation Ministries, Inc.

(HELPS) appeals the order of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas (trial 

court) affirming the decision of the Delaware County Board of Assessment Appeals 

(Board) that denied HELPS’ request for exemption from real estate taxes for its 

property located at 51 Windermere Avenue, Lansdowne (Windermere Property).1 

We affirm.

 

1 Article 8, Section 2(a)(v) of the Pennsylvania Constitution states, “[t]he General 

Assembly may by law exempt from taxation . . . [i]nstitutions of purely public charity, but in the 

case of any real property tax exemptions only that portion of real property of such institution which 

is actually and regularly used for the purposes of the institution.” Pa. Const. art. VIII, §2(a)(v). 

Under the test enunciated in Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 487 A.2d 1306, 1317

(Pa. 1985) (HUP), in order to be considered an “institution of purely public charity” under Article 
2

Following a hearing, the trial court made the following relevant 

findings of fact.2 Reverend Larry Dabney testified that he and his wife founded 

HELPS and that Articles of Incorporation were filed in July 2011. He stated that 

HELPS is a corporation that does not receive government funding and does not 

provide goods or services to the government, and that it is exempt from federal 

income tax. He testified that community giveaways include book bags, bibles, 

umbrellas, materials in book bags, and prizes for children on Friday Night Joy 

Nights.

Dabney testified that HELPS receives contributions and holds 

fundraisers, and that the Windermere Property was gifted to HELPS in 2015. He 

stated that HELPS’ purpose is to bring people to Jesus Christ by helping them with 

their needs. He testified that HELPS has started computer ministries at three 

different churches and aside from paying teenagers who teach the class, no one else 

is paid for the services they render to HELPS. Dabney stated that he purchases the 

computers at a discount due to HELPS’ status as an organization that is exempt from 

federal tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 

§501(c)(3), and the people who complete the computer class are given a free 

computer. He testified that people from all walks of life attend the computer classes. 

He stated that HELPS also receives new coats as donations from the Philadelphia 

School District and that the coats are given out to the community free of charge 

through a flyer that is distributed in West Philadelphia. Dabney testified that a 

 

8, Section 2(a)(v), a landowner must: (1) advance a charitable purpose; (2) donate or render 

gratuitously a substantial portion of its services; (3) benefit a substantial and indefinite class of 

persons who are legitimate subjects of charity; (4) relieve the government of some of its burden; 

and (5) operate entirely free from private profit motive. 

2 William Penn School District (School District) intervened in the proceedings in the trial 

court.
3

HELPS property at South 57th Street in Philadelphia (Philadelphia Property) is where 

HELPS’ activities take place.

Dabney testified that the first floor of the Windermere Property consists 

of a kitchen, living room, dining room, and office; the second floor consists of four 

bedrooms, and the third floor is an apartment with a full kitchen, two offices, and a 

bedroom where he and his wife sleep. He stated that the property also has a basement 

and three bathrooms on each floor. He testified that HELPS accepted the 

Windermere Property because it needed room to store computers, house its offices, 

and to park its 15-passenger van. Dabney stated that planning occurs at the 

Windermere Property.

Pastor David Williams, a HELPS board member affiliated with New 

Springs Baptist Church in Philadelphia, testified that HELPS’ works include feeding 

the homeless, computer training classes, Friday Night Joy Nights for young people, 

and serving Thanksgiving meals at shelters. He stated that HELPS did not charge 

people for Thanksgiving dinner or for the book bags. Williams testified that the 

Thanksgiving dinners were held at 2100 West Tioga and that HELPS’ computer 

classes were held at the Philadelphia Property.

Pastor Michael Robinson, Assistant Pastor at Bethel Gospel Tabernacle 

in Sharon Hill, testified that he worked with HELPS for four years. He stated that 

he started as a computer instructor with HELPS’ computer ministry, that classes 

would range from 11⁄2 to 2 hours, and that they are taught over a six-week period. 

He testified that HELPS’ computer class is publicized by word of mouth and flyers 

that are passed out in other churches, and that the classes took place in Philadelphia.

Esther Marshall testified that she participates in HELPS’ activities 

including Saturday Night Bible study; Joy Night; cooking for Joy Night; attending 
4

the Life Elderly Center on Chestnut Street; attending shelters on Thanksgiving; 

participating in coat giveaways for children and young adults; and participating in 

book bag giveaways filled with school supplies. She stated that she is not paid for 

her time spent working with HELPS and that Joy Night and the other activities take 

place in Philadelphia.

Harrison Dabney, Reverend Dabney’s brother, testified that he 

contributes funds to HELPS every month, and that he has made other donations 

including a $2,000.00 donation in November 2016. He stated that he helps cook 

food at the HELPS’ barbeques in the summer and that he is not compensated for his 

services. He testified that the HELPS’ activities that he participates in occur in 

Philadelphia.

Rowena Dabney, Reverend Dabney’s daughter, testified that her 

children teach computer classes for HELPS and that she assisted HELPS in obtaining 

tax-exempt status for the Philadelphia Property. She stated that she is not paid for 

her time with respect to activities involving HELPS.

Based on the foregoing, with respect to the HUP test, the trial court 

concluded that HELPS established that it advances a charitable purpose; donates or 

gratuitously renders a substantial portion of its services; and that it operates entirely 

free from a profit motive. However, the trial court also concluded that HELPS failed 

to demonstrate that it benefits a substantial and indefinite class of persons who are 

legitimate subjects of charity, the third prong of the HUP test, because it “failed to 

provide evidence that the goods and services provided . . . are received by persons 

who are unable to afford those goods and services themselves.” Reproduced Record 

(R.R.) at 169a. Further, the trial court concluded that HELPS failed to establish that 

it relieves the government of some of its burden, the fourth prong of the HUP test,
5

because “[t]here is no evidence that the government has, in the past, chosen to 

support or undertake supplying clothing, school supplies, or providing computer 

training” or “that the services [HELPS] offer[s] are historically assumed or funded 

by the government.” Id. Accordingly, the trial court affirmed the Board’s decision 

denying HELPS’ request for an exemption for the Windermere Property and HELPS 

filed the instant appeal.3

HELPS first claims that the trial court erred in determining that it failed 

to demonstrate that it met the third prong of the HUP test, i.e., that it benefits a 

substantial and indefinite class of persons who are legitimate subjects of charity.

4

 

However, as we have explained, “In Appeal of Sewickley Valley YMCA, 774 A.2d 1 

 

3 As this Court has explained:

 Whether a parcel of property qualifies for tax exemption is a 

question of law. As such, this Court’s “standard of review is de novo

and our scope of review is plenary.” In a tax assessment appeal, our 

review is limited to “determin[ing] whether the trial court abused its 

discretion or committed an error of law and whether the decision is 

supported by the requisite evidence.”

Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 1989 v. Indiana County Board of Assessment Appeals, 954 A.2d 

100, 102 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (citation omitted). The trial court is the fact finder in tax 

assessment cases and resolves all matters of credibility and evidentiary weight; as a result, the trial 

court’s findings are binding on appeal to this Court when supported by substantial evidence. In re 

Appeal of Dunwoody Village, 52 A.3d 408, 413 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

4 HELPS also argues that it has satisfied the requirements of the Institutions of Purely 

Public Charity Act (Act 55), Act of November 26, 1997, P.L. 508, 10 P.S. §§371–385. However, 

because HELPS does meet the constitutional requirements under HUP, any consideration of the 

provisions of Act 55 is unnecessary. See Mesivtah Eitz Chaim of Bobov, Inc. v. Pike County Board 

of Assessment Appeals, 44 A.3d 3, 9 (Pa. 2012) (“[T]o receive an exemption without violating the 

Constitution, the party must meet the definition of ‘purely public charity’ as measured by the test 

in HUP. If it does so, it may qualify for exemption if it meets the statute’s requirements. Act 55, 

however, cannot excuse the constitutional minimum—if you do not qualify under the HUP test, 

you never get to the statute.”).
6

(Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), this Court indicated that, in order to meet this criterion, an entity 

must show that it makes a bona fide effort to service those persons who are unable 

to afford the usual fee or for whom the fee is outside of their financial reach. The 

persons need not be in financial distress, but it must be shown that the services are 

provided to persons who cannot afford to pay. Id.” Church of the Overcomer v. 

Delaware County Board of Assessment Appeals, 18 A.3d 386, 393-94 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2011).

In this case, the trial court properly found that HELPS did not sustain 

its burden of showing that it met the third prong of the HUP test. The facts as found 

by that court demonstrate that HELPS provided no evidence regarding the ability to 

pay of those who received goods or services relating to the Windermere Property or 

evidence that they were unable to obtain such goods or services relating to that 

property for themselves. In the absence of any specific evidence that any of the 

recipients of any of HELPS’ goods or services relating to the Windermere Property 

were unable to afford those goods or services, HELPS has not met its burden of proof 

with respect to this prong of the HUP test. See, e.g., Church of the Overcomer, 18 

A.3d at 394 (“Pastor Collins testified that the community center’s programs are 

utilized by individuals in the general locale, both inside and outside of Delaware 

County, but he did not offer any specific testimony regarding the nature of these 

individuals or whether said individuals are able to provide for themselves. Thus, the 

evidence presented on behalf of the Church also was insufficient to meet this 

requirement.”).

5

 

5 Because HELPS does not satisfy the third prong of the HUP test, we need not consider 

whether the trial court erred in also determining that HELPS does not satisfy the fourth prong of 

that test. See, e.g., Lehighton Area School District v. Carbon County Board of Assessment, 708 

A.2d 1297, 1302 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (“We first review the HUP standard, keeping in mind that 
7

Accordingly, the trial court’s order is affirmed.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision of this case.

 

the applicant must satisfy all five criteria of the HUP test. Associated YM–YWHA of Greater New 

York/Camp Poyntelle v. County of Wayne, [613 A.2d 125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992)].”).
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Helping Enjoying and :

Loving People :

2 Salvation Ministries, Inc., :

:

Appellant :

:

v. : No. 558 C.D. 2017

: 

Delaware County Board of :

Assessment Appeals :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 9

th day of July, 2018, the order of the Delaware 

County Court of Common Pleas dated March 31, 2017, at No. 2015-010883 is 

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge