ILLINOIS OFFICIAL REPORTS

Appellate Court

Franciscan Communities, Inc. v. Hamer, 2012 IL App (2d) 110431

Appellate Court

Caption

FRANCISCAN COMMUNITIES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRIAN

A. HAMER, Director of the Department of Revenue, THE

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, THE LAKE COUNTY BOARD OF

REVIEW, and THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF LAKE VILLA

COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 41,

Defendants-Appellees.

 District & No. Second District

Docket No. 2-11-0431

Filed August 28, 2012

Held

(Note: This syllabus

constitutes no part of

the opinion of the court

but has been prepared

by the Reporter of

Decisions for the

convenience of the

reader.)

Plaintiff religious organization was not entitled to a religious-use or a

charitable-use property tax exemption for its continuing care retirement

community, except for the chapel, since the primary use of the property

was for upscale senior housing and care, the Department of Revenue’s

determination that the propertywas operated with a view to profit was not

clearly erroneous, and the factors considered in determining whether

property is used exclusively for charitable purposes weighed in favor of

taxation.

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County, No. 09-MR-1830; the

Hon. Margaret J. Mullen, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed.
Counsel on

Appeal

John J. Durso, Edward Clancy, Timothy E. Horton, Seth A. Horvath, and

Emily M. Dierberg-Armstrong, all of Ungaretti & Harris LLP, of

Chicago, for appellant.

Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro,

Solicitor General, and Evan Siegel, Assistant Attorney General, of

counsel), for appellees Brian A. Hamer and Department of Revenue.

Vanessa V. Clohessy and Steven M. Richart, both of Hodges, Loizzi,

Eisenhammer, Rodick & Kohn, LLP, of Arlington Heights, for appellee

Board of Education of Lake Villa Community Consolidated School

District No. 41.

Panel JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Justices McLaren and Birkett concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 Franciscan Communities, Inc. (FC), appeals from an order of the circuit court of Lake

County affirming the decision of the Director of the Illinois Department of Revenue (DOR)

to deny FC’s application for a property tax exemption, except for the chapel, based on

claimed religious and charitable uses of its property in Lindenhurst, Illinois. For the reasons

that follow, we affirm.

¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 3 FC owns a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) called the Village at Victory

Lakes (VL), which is located in Lindenhurst, Illinois. FC is a not-for-profit corporation of

the Franciscan Sisters of Chicago ServiceCorporation, Inc. (FSCSC), which is owned by the

Franciscan Sisters of Chicago (Sisters), a pontifical institute of religious women that is part

of the Roman Catholic Church and reports to the Pope.

¶ 4 FC filed an application seeking exemption from 2007 real estate taxes for VL. The Lake

County board of review (BOR) recommended that the exemption be denied, and the DOR

accepted the BOR’s recommendation. FC appealed the DOR’s denial, and the Board of

Education of Lake Villa Community Consolidated School District No. 41 (school district)

was given leave to intervene upon a showing that its revenues would be adversely affected

if FC received a property tax exemption. Following an extensive evidentiary hearing, the

administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended that the DOR’s denial be affirmed, with the

-2-
exception of allowing exemption for the property’s chapel. The Director of the DOR

accepted the ALJ’s recommendation, and FC filed a complaint seeking administrative review

in the circuit court of Lake County, which affirmed the Director’s decision. FC filed this

timely appeal.

¶ 5 The record includes the following relevant evidence that was adduced at the hearing

before the ALJ. In 2007, VL provided several tiers of services to seniors: independent living

apartments and garden homes; assisted living units; and a skilled nursing center, which

included an Alzheimer’s unit, rehabilitation facilities, a Medicare program, and general longterm care. The concept of the CCRC was that healthy, active seniors would enter the

community at the independent living level and avail themselves of the other tiers as their

health declined. Amenities, such as a beauty salon and country store, were located on VL’s

premises.

¶ 6 VL required a 90% refundable entrance fee plus a monthly service package for the

independent living garden homes. Depending on the home’s style and square footage, the

entrance fees in 2007 ranged from a low of $244,186 with a monthly service package of

$1,248, to a high of $332,608 with a monthly service package of $1,771. The amount of the

monthly service package increased if a second person were to inhabit the home. The 90%

refundable entrance fees for independent living apartments ranged from a low of $127,596

(472 square feet) with a monthly service package of $1,630, increasing, based on square

footage, to a high of $252,525 (951 square feet) with a monthly service package of $2,445.

An individual garage was an additional $88 per month, and the service package for a second

person was $667. Monthly fees for the assisted living units began at $3,881.36 and increased

to $4,741.16, depending upon the style of unit. A second person paid an additional $648.72

per month. Prior to admission, one month’s fee was due in advance as well as a second

month’s fee to cover a security deposit. In 2007, the basic dailyfeewas $167 for intermediate

care and $197 for skilled, Alzheimer’s, and respite care. VL charged an additional daily fee

for a private room. There were ancillary charges for things like activities, physical therapy,

speech therapy, occupational therapy, nursing services and supplies, and beautyshop, escort,

and dietary services.

¶ 7 Residency agreements for the independent living units provided for termination of

residency under certain conditions, for instance, if a resident filed for bankruptcy protection

or failed to pay the monthly service fee or other amounts owed to VL when due, unless other

mutually satisfactory arrangements were made. In 2007, VL’s gross revenue from its

residents was $17.4 million. Net revenue from residents was $15.6 million. Operating

earnings before income tax, depreciation, and amortization were $1.5 million.

¶ 8 FC provided “Gift of Care” assistance for new and existing residents if their other

resources had been exhausted. The considerations for a “Gift of Care” were the availability

of financial assistance funds; the resident’s total assets; the resident’s ability to obtain thirdparty reimbursement; the resident’s seniority; and the date of the “Gift of Care” application.

In 2007, not every application for “Gift of Care” assistance was approved. Funds advanced

under a “Gift of Care” were recoverable by VL from the resident’s 90% refundable fees (or

the resident’s estate).

-3-
¶ 9 It was undisputed that the Roman Catholic Church (Church) and the Sisters were

religious organizations. The Sisters participate in the religious life of the Church. Their

specific “charism” (the spirit that impels their particular apostolate ) is to give service to the 1

elderly. They carry this out by operating (through their corporations) CCRCs. Stewardship

is one of their values, meaning that theymust operate their CCRCs as businesses so that they

can continue and expand their service to the aged and infirm. In 2007, none of the Sisters

lived at VL, which they purchased from a secular entity in 2006. The Sisters maintained a

presence at VLthrough its vice-president and its director of mission integration and pastoral

care. Through these persons, religious ceremonies, and occasional visits by some of the

Sisters, the Sisters’ spirit and values were transmitted to VL’s employees, who were not all

Catholics. Neither were all of the residents Catholics, nor were they required to be believers.

For this reason, the Sisters did not place religious icons or art in the residents’ homes,

apartments, and units, although religious symbols were placed in public areas. When the

Sisters purchased VL, the chapel was being used for parties and book fairs. The Sisters

instructed that those uses cease, and they required that the chapel be used exclusively for

reflection and worship, having installed a tabernacle and Eucharist. Mass was said in the

chapel. Hymn singing, Bible studies, and the Rosarywere held in other parts of the premises.

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 We review the administrative agency’s decision rather than the trial court’s decision.

Armenian Church of Lake Bluff v. Department of Revenue, 2011 IL App (1st) 102249, ¶ 2.

Where resolution of the case requires determining the legal effect of a given set of facts, the

agency’s decision should be affirmed unless it is clearly erroneous. Three Angels

Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 381 Ill. App. 3d 679, 693 (2008).

Here, our inquiry is whether the facts satisfy a statutory standard for tax exemption; hence,

we apply the clearly erroneous standard of review. Three Angels, 381 Ill. App. 3d at 693. In

reviewing the agency’s determination on a mixed question of law and fact for clear error, we

give significant deference to the agency’s experience in construing and applying the statutes

that it administers. Three Angels, 381 Ill. App. 3d at 693. An agency’s decision is clearly

erroneous only where the reviewing court, on the entire record, is left with the definite and

firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Three Angels, 381 Ill. App. 3d at 693.

¶ 12 Under Illinois law, taxation is the rule, and tax exemption is the exception. Provena

Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue, 236 Ill. 2d 368, 388 (2010) (plurality

op.) (Provena II). All property is subject to taxation unless it is exempt by statute, and

statutes granting exemptions must be strictly construed in favor of taxation. Provena II, 236

Ill. 2d at 388. The party claiming an exemption must prove by clear and convincing evidence

that the subject property falls within both the constitutional authorization and the terms of

the statute under which the exemption is claimed. Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 388. A basis for

exemption cannot be inferred where none has been demonstrated. Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at

388. All facts are construed, and all debatable questions resolved, in favor of taxation.

The apostolate is the fulfillment of the Sisters’ mission in the world. 1

-4-
Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 388. Every presumption is against the intention of the state to

exempt property from taxation. Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 388.

¶ 13 Article IX of the Illinois Constitution provides that the General Assembly may exempt

all property used exclusively for religious and charitable purposes. Ill. Const. 1970, art. IX,

§ 6; Fairview Haven v. Department of Revenue, 153 Ill. App. 3d 763, 770 (1987). Section

15-40(a)(1) of the Illinois PropertyTax Code (Code) (35 ILCS 200/15-40(a)(1) (West 2006))

provides, “Property used exclusively for *** religious purposes *** qualifies for exemption

as long as it is not used with a view to profit.” Pursuant to section 15-65 of the Code, in order

to qualify for a charitable exemption, the subject propertymust be “actually and exclusively”

used for “charitable or beneficent purposes, and not leased or otherwise used with a view to

profit.” 35 ILCS 200/15-65 (West 2006). Property satisfies the exclusive-use requirement of

the property tax exemption statutes if it is used primarily for the exempted purpose.

McKenzie v. Johnson, 98 Ill. 2d 87, 98 (1983). Where property is used for two purposes, one

of which is exempt and one of which is not, a tax should be imposed against the part of the

property that does not qualify for exemption. Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 771.

¶ 14 1. FC’s Religious Exemption Claim

¶ 15 FC contends that the DOR’s conclusion that VL was not used in 2007 primarily for

religious purposes was clearly erroneous. FC reasons that, since FC’s religious purpose is to

provide care and housing to seniors, the law requires the conclusion that FC operates VL

exclusively for religious purposes. FC further contends that constitutionally the DOR cannot

deny the religious exemption on the ground that VLis operated with a view to profit, because

canon law requires the Sisters to be good stewards of their property and, following canon

law, stewardship, which dictates a business-like operation, is one of the Sisters’ religious

values. FC additionally argues that the ALJ’s finding that the Sisters could accomplish their

religious purpose through other means unconstitutionally infringed on their free-exercise

right, because serving and housing the aged is their religious charism. In essence, FC claims

that constitutionally the courts cannot inquire into either FC’s stated religious purpose in

operating VL or its stated use of the property as primarily religious.

¶ 16 The first amendment to the United States Constitution (U.S. Const., amend. I) and article

I of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. I, § 3) provide that government may not

inhibit the free exercise of religion or act to foster any particular belief. Fairview, 153 Ill.

App. 3d at 772. Consequently, governmental bodies are precluded from resolving disputes

based on religious doctrine and must respect the autonomy of religious organizations.

Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 772. “In the tax context, the first amendment requires the court

to accept the entity’s characterization of its activities and beliefs as religious as long as the

characterization is in good faith.” Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 773. Neither a court nor an

administrative agency may go behind the entity’s declared content of its religious beliefs or

examine the validity of those beliefs. Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 773. Here, FC spent hours

and days proving what no one disputed: that the Roman Catholic Church is a religious

organization, that the Sisters are a religious organization within the Roman Catholic Church,

and that the Sisters’ charism is to serve the elderly. It is similarly undisputed that the Sisters

-5-
purchased VL because there was no Catholic CCRC in Lake County. Therefore, it is

undisputed that VL is a means for the Church and the Sisters to carry out the mission of

Christ’s healing. Neither the ALJ nor the DOR either examined or rejected FC’s

characterization of the beliefs of the Church or the Sisters. The ALJ found that those beliefs

were sincere. Accordingly, the DOR did not unconstitutionally inquire into the content or

validity of FC’s beliefs or stated purpose in operating VL.

2

¶ 17 FC maintains that, by inquiring into FC’s actual operation of VL to determine whether

the property was used exclusively for religious purposes, the DOR violated the first

amendment, because it questioned canon law and the Archbishop of Chicago’s decrees with

respect to how the property was used. It is FC’s position that civil authorities must accept not

only a religious organization’s characterization of its beliefs but also the entity’s

characterization of its use of the subject property. Under this theory, no property taxes could

ever be imposed on any property a religious organization declared was used exclusively for

religious purposes, regardless of the true facts. This is contrary to established law. Courts are

permitted to determine whether property is in fact used exclusively for religious purposes.

Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 773. “A court must *** take into account the facts and

circumstances regarding how the property is actually used.” Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 409.

¶ 18 We digress to discuss the import of Provena II. The parties dispute its precedential value.

Provena II is a plurality opinion by Justice Karmeier, Chief Justice Fitzgerald, and Justice

Thomas. Justices Kilbride and Garman did not participate in the decision. Justices Burke and

Freeman joined in that part of the plurality opinion that held that the taxpayer failed to

demonstrate that it was entitled to a religious-use exemption. Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 411

(Burke, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Freeman, J.). Justices Burke

and Freeman also joined in the plurality opinion’s conclusion that the taxpayer failed to

establish that it was a charitable institution. Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 411 (Burke, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Freeman, J.). However, Justices Burke

and Freeman did not agree with the reasoning the plurality opinion employed to reach the

conclusion regarding the charitable exemption. It is a “hornbook” principle of practice and

procedure that no appellate pronouncement becomes binding on inferior courts unless it has

the concurrence of a majority of the judges qualified to decide the case. State ex rel. James

v. ACLU of Alabama, 711 So. 2d 952, 964 (Ala. 1998). Accordingly, the analysis in that part

of Provena II pertaining to the religious-use exemption is precedential, because a majority

joined in both the result and the reasoning. That part of the analysis in Provena II pertaining

to the charitable exemption is not binding authority, as Justice Burke noted in the partial

dissent. Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 416-17 (Burke, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part,

joined by Freeman, J.). Consequently, we consider, and rely on, only that part of Provena II

that discusses the religious-use exemption.

¶ 19 We must indulge in another digression related to the Provena cases. In its reply brief, FC

raises the argument for the first time that the ALJ’s citation of the appellate court’s decision

Later in this opinion, we will expand our discussion of the ALJ’s finding that operation of 2

VL was not necessary to accomplish the Sisters’ religious purpose.

-6-
in Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue, 384 Ill. App. 3d 734 (2008)

(Provena I), is reversible error. This argument is forfeited for two reasons. First, arguments

may not be raised for the first time in reply briefs. Villanueva v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,

Inc., 373 Ill. App. 3d 800, 802 (2007). FC cannot say that it was responding to the DOR’s

brief, which cited Provena I, because the issue of whether it was error for the ALJ to rely on

the appellate court’s decision was already known to FC when it filed its opening brief.

Second, FC gives no reason and cites no authority to support why it believes that the ALJ’s

reliance on Provena I was reversible error. Failure to argue a point results in forfeiture of the

issue. Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352, 369 (2010). Both argument and citation to relevant

authority are required. Vancura, 238 Ill. 2d at 370.

¶ 20 Having clarified the extent to which Provena II is binding on this court, we note that the

taxpayer in Provena II made the identical argument as FC–that the religious authorities,

rather than courts, determine the use of the subject property–which our supreme court

rejected. Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 410 (“If [Provena’s] argument were valid, it would mean

that the church rather than the judiciary is the ultimate arbiter of when and under what

circumstances church property is exempt from taxation ***.”). Indeed, for this court to hold

that canon law trumps civil law and that the Archbishop’s determination precludes judicial

review would itself run afoul of the establishment clause of the first amendment. We would

be blatantly fostering particular religious beliefs. Furthermore, even if we were to assume,

arguendo, that FC’s use of the property was exclusively for religious purposes, we would

still have to inquire whether the subject property was “used with a view to profit.” Under the

plain language of section 15-65 of the Code, in order to meet its burden that it is entitled to

a religious-use exemption, the taxpayer must introduce evidence not only that its primary use

of the subject property is religious but also that it is not using the property with a view to

profit. Three Angels, 381 Ill. App. 3d at 696.

¶ 21 FC challenges as unconstitutional that portion of the ALJ’s recommendation that FC says

restricts religious use to public worship or religious instruction. FC relies on Calvary Baptist

Church of Tilton v. Department of Revenue, 349 Ill. App. 3d 325 (2004), where the court

held that, in requiring that the property be used for public worship or religious instruction,

the ALJ applied the wrong standard to determine the primary use of the property. Calvary,

349 Ill. App. 3d at 332. However, we do not read the ALJ’s recommendation as equating

“religious use” with public worship or religious instruction. The ALJ cited Provena I, where

the court discussed People ex rel. McCullough v. Deutsche Gemeinde, 249 Ill. 132 (1911).

In McCullough, our supreme court stated that “a religious purpose means a use of such

property by a religious society or body of persons as a stated place for public worship,

Sunday schools and religious instruction.” McCullough, 249 Ill. at 136-37; accord Provena

I, 384 Ill. App. 3d at 767. Provena I noted that our supreme court later held that the quoted

passage from McCullough was not inclusive of everything that might in the future be

regarded as a religious use but that it was illustrative of the nature of such use. Provena I,

384 Ill. App. 3d at 767. Provena I then held that medical care did not resemble public

worship, Sundayschools, or religious instruction. Provena I, 384 Ill. App. 3d at 767. In citing

Provena I’s discussion of McCullough, the ALJ was responding to FC’s argument that

“everything that occurs at [VL] is a religious activity.” The ALJ concluded that “religious

-7-
identity, religious motivation, and religious spirit are not synonymous with, and are legally

insufficient to establish, religious use.” The ALJ’s statement that FC finds constitutionally

offensive was the following sentence: “Similarly, in the instant case, [FC] has failed to prove

that leasing 320 residences to financially secure seniors ‘resembles’ public worship, Sunday

school or religious instruction.” The ALJ was simply using the same illustration as the court

in Provena I, rather than limiting religious use to specific categories. Moreover, this

argument is only a slightly different restatement of FC’s other constitutional claim, which

we have rejected, that it is the religious authorities who must determine whether the subject

property is used exclusively for religious purposes.

¶ 22 Next, FC urges that VL is “an expression of the Church’s healing ministry and mission”

and that taxation “could eventually hamper, or lead to the silencing of, that expression.” FC

concludes that paying property taxes violates its right to free speech. FC does not flesh out

its argument beyond this and cites inapposite cases’ boilerplate language. Consequently, FC

has forfeited this argument, because it is not clearly defined and sufficiently presented. See

Bublitz v. Wilkins Buick, Mazda, Suzuki, Inc., 377 Ill. App. 3d 781, 787 (2007).

¶ 23 In contending that VL was in fact exclusively used for religious purposes, FC argues that

VL is part of the Church’s mission of diaconal service, VL directly furthers and fulfills the 3

healing ministry of the Church, and VL allows the Sisters to fulfill their “unique charism”

of healing and serving the aged and infirm. In their briefs, both sides rely on Fairview;

however, at oral argument, FC attempted to distinguish Fairview on the facts.

¶ 24 In Fairview, Fairview Haven was a nursing home organized and supported by four

Apostolic Christian Church of America congregations. Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 766. In

support of its argument that it was entitled to a religious-use exemption, Fairview Haven

cited the following facts: the Apostolic Christian Church of America founded Fairview

Haven; there were needs in the community to care for the elderly in a nonwarehouse fashion

and be a source of Christian atmosphere; one of the basic tenets of the church is that

salvation is accomplished through faith and Christian witness; members show their faith by

accomplishing Christian service works; Fairview Haven existed to meet the goal of

accomplishing Christian service works; the motivating factor behind Fairview Haven was

to provide an opportunity to help the elderly and fulfill the tenets of the church; and Fairview

Haven was listed as an outreach ministry of the national church. Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d

at 768. Testimony further showed that only church members could be on Fairview Haven’s

board; all policies, rules, and regulations had to subscribe to the beliefs of the church, and

those beliefs had to be reflected in the operation of the nursing home; religious services were

piped into the residents’ rooms; the background music consisted of religious themes;

Fairview Haven was an integral part of the church and was governed and maintained by the

church; and Fairview Haven “proclaimed the good news,” so it served a religious purpose.

Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 768. The DOR denied the exemption and concluded that

Theologian, Father Michael Place, testified that the service of “diakonia” is charitable 3

works by which the Church seeks to bring healing where there is “brokenness of body, mind, or

spirit.”

-8-
Fairview Haven’s use was primarily commercial, not religious or charitable. Fairview, 153

Ill. App. 3d at 769. The evidence showed that the residents paid fees at varying rates and

signed admission contracts that contained guarantee-of-payment clauses. Fairview, 153 Ill.

App. 3d at 766. On administrative review, the circuit court reversed the DOR’s

determination, and, with respect to religious use, the circuit court held that the DOR’s

finding that Fairview Haven was not used exclusively for religious purposes violated its first

amendment rights. Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 769. The appellate court reversed the circuit

court on the religious-use issue, holding that the DOR’s determination that Fairview Haven’s

method of operation was businesslike, and therefore not exclusively for religious purposes,

was supported by the evidence. Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 775. At oral argument, FC

argued that the instant case is factually different from Fairview because, in Fairview, the

operation of the nursing home was not a function of the church, whereas here, VL was the

Church. FC’s analysis is mistaken, because the evidence in Fairview showed that Fairview

Haven was an outreach ministry of the national church.

¶ 25 The Fairview court set forth the parameters of constitutional religious-use inquiry in tax

matters and held that, first, the court must accept the organization’s characterization of the

purposes of its activities, and, second, the court must determine whether the property is in

fact used exclusively for religious purposes. Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 773. Here, FC 4

argues that, applying Fairview’s parameters, the evidence clearly showed that the Sisters

“believe their activities are religious and use VL primarily for those religious activities.”

Specifically, FC points to the evidence that one of the missions of the Roman Catholic

Church is to provide healing to those in need, and VL, as part of the Church, fulfills that

mission by providing care to older adults in need. FC maintains that the provision of shelter

and care for the aged is a tenet derived from scripture and is a form of worship. The DOR

and the school district cite Fairview for the proposition that, where a nursing home is

operated as a commercial concern, it is not used exclusively for religious purposes. In sum,

FC focuses on the Sisters’ religious beliefs while the DOR and the school district grant the

existence of those beliefs but focus on the actual nuts-and-bolts operation of VL.

¶ 26 In Fairview, the court acknowledged (and it was uncontested) that the operation of

Fairview Haven “provided an opportunity for members of the Apostolic Christian faith to

carry out Christian service work, care for the elderly, and engage in evangelization.”

Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 774. The court then stated, “However, operation of the nursing

home was not necessary for these religious purposes, which could also have been

accomplished through other means.” Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 774. The court noted that

the practice of virtues is encouraged by all religious organizations, but the practice of such

virtues as charity and kindness, in particular toward the aged, is not within commonly

accepted definitions of “religious purposes.” Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 774. Here, the

ALJ, citing this language from Fairview, concluded: “Similarly, whereas the existence and

FC consistently acknowledges the first prong of the Fairview constitutional analysis–that 4

the court must accept the organization’s characterization of the purposes of its activities–but also

consistently disagrees with the second prong, that is, that the court determines whether the subject

property is, in fact, used exclusively for religious purposes.

-9-
operation of VL may provide an opportunity for religious activities, VL, itself, is not

necessary for the fulfillment of the Sisters’ mission, and [VL] is not necessary for the

performance of religious activities, mandated by the Church in order to attain salvation.” FC

argues that the ALJ’s conclusion was clearly and constitutionally erroneous, given the

Sisters’ charism.

¶ 27 In Fairview, the existence of Fairview Haven provided church members the opportunity

to accomplish “Christian service works.” Fairview, 153 Ill. App. 3d at 768. “Christian

service works” is a broad category, lending meaning to the court’s statement that operating

Fairview Haven was not necessary to the fulfillment of the goal of accomplishing “Christian

service works,” as other “works” could take its place and still meet the goal. Here, Sister

Diane Marie Collins, the Sisters’ general minister, testified that the charism is the spirit that

impels the performance of a particular apostolate. Sister Diane Marie testified that the

charism of the Sisters comes from their foundress whose mission was to care for the elderly.

Therefore, according to Sister Diane Marie, the Sisters’ charism is “to meet the needs of the

elderlymen, women[,] and children [sic], and to do so to the best of our ability.” Sister Diane

Marie testified that the Sisters implement their charism through their institutions of service

such as VL. Thus, the Sisters’ charism is much narrower than “Christian service works,” as

“Christian service works” is generic, while meeting the needs of the elderly is more specific.

Still, meeting the needs of the elderly is broader than the operation of VL, as meeting the

needs of the elderly could presumably be accomplished in any number of ways. This is how

we interpret the ALJ’s conclusion. At oral argument, FC asserted that its operation of VL as

a CCRC was necessary to meet the Sisters’ charism. However, FC also acknowledged at 5

oral argument that the Sisters’ operation of CCRCs, as a means of fulfilling their 114-year

charism, is relatively new, as FC began operating CCRCs only in the 1980s.

¶ 28 The discussion of how the Sisters accomplish their goals is misleading because, whether

we are talking about meeting the goal of “Christian service works” or implementing the

Sisters’ charism, we are talking about the motivation for operating the subject property as a

nursing home. “Religious purpose is not determined solely by the professed motives or

beliefs of the property owner.” Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 409. Courts must look at the “facts

and circumstances regarding how the property is actually used.” Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 6

409. Again, the parties in our case look at how VL is actually used through different lenses.

Sister Diane Marie testified:

“The way in which we witness to the Church is by the service that we give and what

At oral argument, FC attempted to distinguish Provena II on this basis, noting that the court 5

in Provena II pointed out that the taxpayer there made no claim that operation of a fee-based medical

center was essential to the practice or observance of the Catholic faith. See Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d

at 410.

It is well to keep in mind that there is a distinction between religious purpose and religious 6

use. The record is clear that everything the Sisters do with respect to VL is done with a religious

purpose, i.e., motivation, whereas the use to which the property is put stresses the practicality of the

result.

-10-
I mean [by] that is the service that we give to the residents [of VL]. The service that we

give to our associates who other persons would call employees. What I mean by service

here is the fact that we–everything that we do, everything that is done in any of our

CCRCs or any of our other ministries or apostolates is considered religious service,

because that is what we’re required to do.”

Sister Diane Marie explained that “from the way a floor is mopped, toilet is cleaned, resident

is fed, families are dealt with, all of those things for us are some of the examples of the ways

that we witness to the Church.” The DOR and the school district dwell on the commercial

aspects of VL. As the appellate court in Provena I stated, “The issue is not whether [the

hospital] is operated as an ‘apostolic mission and health care ministry of the Catholic

Church’ but whether it is ‘used exclusively for *** religious purposes’ as case law defines

that phrase.” Provena I, 384 Ill. App. 3d at 766. Here, also, the issue is not the religious

motivation behind the day-to-day use of the subject property, but the day-to-day use itself.

¶ 29 In determining that a day care center run by a religious organization was not exempt, the

court in Faith Builders Church, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 378 Ill. App. 3d 1037 (2008),

said, “In a sense, everything a deeply devout person does has a religious purpose. But if that

formulation determined the exemption from property taxes, religious identity would

effectivelybe the sole criterion.” Faith Builders, 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1046. “Exemption would

be the rule, and taxation the exception.” Provena I, 384 Ill. App. 3d at 766. For purposes of

taxation, courts look at whether advancing religion is identified as the subject property’s

dominant purpose. Provena II, 236 Ill. 2d at 409. Courts also look at whether the operation

is more businesslike and characteristic of a commercial enterprise than a facility used

primarily for religious purposes. Faith Builders, 378 Ill. App. 3d at 1046. Here, FC had to

prove that the religious use of VL was primary and that any secular use was incidental. See

Provena I, 384 Ill. App. 3d at 767.

¶ 30 According to VLadvertisements in evidence, VLoffers a “gracious atmosphere in which

to enjoy family and friends. Residents enjoy carefree living in a warm and inviting

community.” Billing life at VL as a “lifestyle of choice,” VL advanced the “top ten” reasons

to move to garden and apartment homes: (1) “You can sell that lawn mower and snow

shovel!”; (2) “You can turn your green thumb loose!”; (3) “A feeling of safety and security!”;

(4) Lots of activities you can enjoy!”; (5) “Wonderful dining experiences!”; (6) “You can

ride the Village bus!”; (7) “You have no home maintenance!”; (8) “It’s an ideal setting!”; (9)

“Healthy connections!”; and (10) “PEACE OF MIND!” VL’s brochure invited residents in

the garden homes and apartments to “choose [their] fun”: “It’s all right here for you. Taking

part in daily planned activities, attending social functions, going to theatrical, cultural and

recreational events ***.” VL listed the amenities available to residents: arts and crafts room;

atrium; bank; beauty salon/barber shop; computer center; country store/café; elegant dining

room; garages; gazebo; health and fitness center; library; multipurpose great room; private

dining room; spacious common lobby areas; walking paths; and beautifully landscaped

grounds. Amenities for the assisted living residents included a tea kitchen, lounge spaces,

television connections, and a common fireplace outside the country dining area. The

Alzheimer’s unit featured “Sunshine Wings” to “accommodate residents in a comfortable

and home-like atmosphere.” The continuing care center was billed as a “place that feels like

-11-
home”; “a place where you feel connected”; “a place where you feel loved”; “a place where

you can grow spiritually”; “a place where you can age with choice”; “a place where you will

experience quality service . . . everyday”; “a place where you are surrounded by natural

beauty”; and “a place where you have access to superior health care . . . on site.”

¶ 31 Documents in evidence showed that FSCSC analyzed whether FC should purchase VL

in light of market and financial criteria. Documents in evidence also revealed that VL was

a good acquisition based on “location/market area,” but that to achieve a “break-even

position,” both “marketing efforts and monthly rates will need to increase.” After FC

acquired VL, it reduced expenses at VL through staff reductions. FC’s documents showed

that it closely monitored local markets to ensure that competitive rates were being charged.

Residents signed contracts, and VL was authorized to terminate residency for nonpayment

or bankruptcy. In 2007, VL generated $17.4 million in gross revenue from fees paid by

residents.

¶ 32 The school district included in its separate appendix documents that are not part of the

record. Those documents are pages of a loan agreement between FC and the Illinois Finance

Authority in which FC agreed to “use [VL] primarily as and for senior living and health care

facilities and related activities and only in furtherance of the lawful corporate purposes of

[FC].” FC further agreed that it would not use VL in a manner that is prohibited by the first

amendment. The school district and the DOR contend that these documents contradict FC’s

religious-use arguments and they ask us to take judicial notice of the documents. “Courts

cannot consider evidence outside of the record of the administrative appeal.” Lyon v.

Department of Children & Family Services, 209 Ill. 2d 264, 271 (2004). Consequently, we

will not judicially notice, nor will we consider, the documents in the school district’s

appendix.

¶ 33 We turn now to FC’s denial that VL was operated with a view to profit. FC argues that,

because VL lost money and because the Sisters “believe their mission is important and want

to continue it for another 114 years,” VL was not operated with a view to profit. The

legislature did not premise the religious-use exemption on whether an entity actually realizes

a profit but on whether the entity uses the property “with a view to profit.” Consequently,

realizing a loss does not establish FC’s lack of intent to make a profit, and the Sisters’ desire

to continue to serve the elderly for an extended period of time is irrelevant to whether VL

was operated with a view to profit. With respect to the argument that the Sisters use any

monies they make from the operation of VL to continue their mission, the fact that property

is used with a view to profit defeats a religious-use exemption regardless of whether that

profit is applied to maintaining the religious organization. Three Angels, 381 Ill. App. 3d at

697. FC’s reliance on Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of the United States of America v.

Hoffman, 62 Ill. App. 3d 798 (1978), is misplaced. In Hoffman, the religious organization’s

sale of publications did not defeat the religious-use exemption. Hoffman, 62 Ill. App. 3d at

803. Hoffman is inapposite for two reasons. First, the court in Hoffman held that the law

developed in cases involving homes for the elderly was not applicable. Hoffman, 62 Ill. App.

3d at 801. Second, the facts in Hoffman are distinguishable. The evidence in Hoffman

showed that any revenue in excess of expenditures was the sole result of donations; the

organization sold its publications at cost or less; and the organization provided a substantial

-12-
amount of its materials free or below cost to groups that were targeted for its message.

Hoffman, 62 Ill. App. 3d at 803. Here, VL did not provide any services for free, and the 7

majority of its revenue was derived from the fees it charged its residents. Even if VL lost

money as a business enterprise, the evidence does not support the theory that the loss was

intentional. Indeed, FC’s argument is that the Sisters were required by canon law to be good

stewards and make money so that their mission could continue into the future.

¶ 34 FC’s reliance on Calvary is also misplaced. The appellate court in Calvary reversed the

DOR’s determination that the subject property was not exempt, based in part on the fact that

the ALJ applied the wrong legal standard. Calvary, 349 Ill. App. 3d at 332. The evidence in

Calvary demonstrated that use of the subject property was limited to the religious

organization’s members, their friends, and other churches, and that secular activities were

only occasional. Calvary, 349 Ill. App. 3d at 333. In our case, none of the Sisters resided at

VL, and VL’s director and staff were laypeople, not even necessarily Catholics. The vicepresident and the director of mission integration and pastoral care were both laypersons. The

residents were laypersons of any faith or no faith. VL offered its residents many amenities

and activities that were unrelated to religion.

¶ 35 The evidence supports the conclusion that, except for the chapel, which was used

exclusively for religious purposes, the primary use of VLwas for upscale senior housing and

care with an enhanced lifestyle. To be sure, there was a religious component, but–as the

advertisements and enticementsfor living at VLmake clear–advancing religion was not VL’s

primary purpose.

¶ 36 We understand and appreciate FC’s argument that the Sisters’ primary purpose was

religious, in the sense that their motivation was religious, but the issue is not whether VL was

an apostolate of the Sisters. It unquestionably was. FC insistently frames the issue in terms

of the Sisters’religious beliefs and values: “[T]he manifest weight of the evidence shows that

the Sisters believe their activities at VL are religious and that they use VL for those religious

purposes.” No one–not the DOR, the school district, or the ALJ–questioned the Sisters’

beliefs. For that reason, FC’s reliance on cases such as University of Great Falls v. National

Labor Relations Board, 278 F.3d 1335 (D.C. Cir. 2002), and Corporation of the Presiding

Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987)

(dealing with the line between religious and secular activities), is unavailing. Here, we are

not called upon to decide whether the Sisters engage in religious activities. It is a given that

they do, but the evidence overwhelmingly showed that the operation of VL was businesslike

and characteristic of a commercial enterprise. VL was not giving care to the elderly; it was

selling care to the elderly, as well as a certain lifestyle for those in independent living, at

competitive market rates. The DOR’s determination that VL was operated with a view to

profit was not clearly erroneous. Consequently, even if FC had proved that the use of the

subject property was exclusively for religious purposes, it could not avail itself in 2007 of

a religious-use tax exemption.

In 2007, VL had empty accommodations yet did not house elderly in need who could not 7

afford the entrance fees and monthly service packages.

-13-
¶ 37 2. FC’s Charitable Exemption Claim

¶ 38 We turn now to FC’s contention that it was entitled to a charitable tax exemption for the

year 2007. The findings and conclusions of an administrative agency on questions of fact are

considered prima facie true and correct, and we may not interfere with the agency’s

discretionary authority unless it is exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner or the

administrative decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Gumma v. White, 345

Ill. App. 3d 610, 615 (2003). The appellate court may not reverse the agency’s decision

simply because it would have ruled differently or because the opposite conclusion is

reasonable. Boom Town Saloon, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 384 Ill. App. 3d 27, 32 (2008). “If

there is any evidence in the record that fairly supports the agency’s decision, then the

decision is not against the manifest weight and the decision must be affirmed on appeal.”

Boom Town, 384 Ill. App. 3d at 32.

¶ 39 In Methodist Old Peoples Home v. Korzen, 39 Ill. 2d 149 (1968), our supreme court set

forth six criteria or guidelines for determining whether property is exclusively used for

charitable purposes: (1)the charitable institution bestows benefits upon an indefinite number 8

of persons, reducing the burdens of government; (2) the charitable institution has no capital,

capital stock or shareholders, and earns no profits or dividends; (3) the institution’s funds are

derived mainly from private and public charity and are held in trust for the purposes

expressed in the charter; (4) charity is dispensed to all who need it and apply for it; (5) the

institution puts no obstacles in the way of those seeking the charitable benefits; and (6) the

primary use of the property is for charitable purposes. Korzen, 39 Ill. 2d at 156-57; Provena

I, 384 Ill. App. 3d at 742. Here, the ALJ found that FC failed to satisfy all six of the Korzen

factors.9

¶ 40 FC contends that the ALJ erred by limiting “charity” to almsgiving or “giving money

away.” FC argues that charity includes relieving suffering and attending to persons’ spiritual

and physical well-being. For the Church, FC explains, diakonia (a Greek word meaning

service or charity) “is to bring love and remedy wherever there is brokenness.” In the

property-tax arena, our supreme court has not so broadly defined charity or, more

particularly, charitable use. The legislature, which has the power to tax, also has the power

to exempt from taxation. Eden Retirement Center, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 213 Ill.

2d 273, 285 (2004). The legislature has determined (consistent with the IllinoisConstitution)

that the exemption is limited to property that is exclusively used for charitable purposes, and

The court explained that the statutory term “exclusively used” means the “primary purpose

8

for which the property is used and not any secondary or incidental purpose.” Korzen, 39 Ill. 2d at

157.

The DOR and the school district–especially the DOR–base their charitable-exemption 9

arguments largely on Provena II’s charitable-use analysis, which, as Justice Burke noted in her

partial dissent, is not binding on lower courts under the doctrine of stare decisis. Provena II, 236 Ill.

2d at 416-17 (Burke, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Freeman, J.). Therefore,

our analysis is pre-Provena II.

-14-
our supreme court in Korzen articulated the guidelines for resolving the question of

charitable use. Eden, 213 Ill. 2d at 287. The ALJ employed the guidelines. Consequently, the

ALJ’s approach was not impermissibly narrow.

¶ 41 In applying the Korzen factors, we are mindful that the factors are guidelines, not strict

requirements, that courts consider and balance by examining the facts of each case. Du Page

County Board of Review v. Joint Comm’n on Accreditation of HealthcareOrganizations, 274

Ill. App. 3d 461, 469 (1995). Here, the ALJ analyzed the factors in a different orderfrom that

outlined in Korzen, so, for consistency, we will employ the ALJ’s blueprint.

¶ 42 A. The Organization’s Funds Are Derived Mainly

From Private and Public Charity

¶ 43 The ALJfound that FC failed to prove that VL’s funds were derived mainly from private

and public charity and held in trust for the objects and purposes expressed in its charter. The

evidence showed that VL derived its operating income almost exclusively from residents’

fees. In 2007, resident revenue was $15.6 million, and total operating revenue was $15.7

million. Further, there was testimony that VL received almost no donations or gifts in 2007.

Ken Wiberg, the community controller in 2007, testified that donations to VL in 2007 were

“maybe” $1,000. FC maintains that the Sisters gave money to VL, but there was no

documentation showing transfers of money from FC to VL in 2007.

¶ 44 In Wyndemere Retirement Community v. Department of Revenue, 274 Ill. App. 3d 455

(1995), Wyndemere, a “life-care community for the elderly,” sought a charitable-use

exemption from retailer’s occupation taxes and use taxes. Wyndemere, 274 Ill. App. 3d at

456. In affirming the Department’s denial of the exemption, this court examined the Korzen

factors. With respect to how Wyndemere derived its funds, the evidence showed that its

initial construction funds were provided by a charitable organization but that the balance of

its funds for operation were provided by “substantial” entrance and monthly fees charged “to

those who can afford to avail themselves of Wyndemere’s services.” Wyndemere, 274 Ill.

App. 3d at 460. In Alivio Medical Center v. Department of Revenue, 299 Ill. App. 3d 647

(1998), 59% of the medical center’s income was derived from patient fees, which militated

against its claimed charitable status. Alivio, 299 Ill. App. 3d at 651-52. Here, the percentage

of VL’s income from residents’ fees was much higher, nearly 100%. The present case fits

within the holdings of Wyndemere and Alivio, which followed our supreme court’s precedent

in Small v. Pangle, 60 Ill. 2d 510 (1975), where the court held that an old people’s home was

not entitled to a charitable exemption, in part because its “greatest source of funds [was] not

from either private or public charity” but from monthly resident rental charges. Small, 60 Ill.

2d at 517.

¶ 45 B. The Organization Has No Capital, Capital Stock

or Shareholders and Does Not Provide Gain

¶ 46 While the ALJ acknowledged that FC had no capital stock or shareholders, he concluded

that this factor weighed in favor of taxation, because FC purchased and operated VL with a

-15-
view to profit, there was no evidence that VL’s highest-compensated employees were paid

salaries commensurate with other nonprofits, and VL paid substantial management fees to

FC. Thus, the ALJ concluded that FC provided gain or profit in a private sense to persons

connected with it. See Korzen, 39 Ill. 2d at 157 (“[A] charitable institution is one which ***

does not provide gain or profit in a private sense to any person connected with it.”). FC

contends that the ALJ’s conclusion was against the manifest weight of the evidence, arguing

that VL actually lost money, the money it took in from residents’ fees was used to maximize

FC’s charity, testimony that VL’s salaries were in the range of other nonprofits was

unrebutted, and any management fees VL might have paid to FC were used to further the

Sisters’ charitable mission. The evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that FC purchased and

operated VL with a view to profit. Documents in evidence made it clear that market

considerations went into the decision to purchase VL and that, upon purchase, rates were

increased in an effort to achieve a “break-even” position. FC thereafter was concerned about

maintaining competitive market rates. That VL did not actually turn a profit is not the

criterion for determining whether it is eligible for a charitable exemption. The legislature

provided that an entity is ineligible for the exemption where it is used with a view to profit,

not where it makes a profit. Nor are we persuaded by FC’s argument that it would have used

any gains to further the Sisters’ mission. It is the use to which the property is put, rather than

the use to which income from the property is put, that is decisive. Salvation Army v.

Department of Revenue, 170 Ill. App. 3d 336, 344 (1988).

¶ 47 FC presented testimony that VL determined compensation for its executives and

employees in 2007 by comparing salaries to something called the “Mercer Study,” a research

tool for institutions comparable to FC. Although FC’s witnesses testified that executive

salaries fell within the “Mercer range,” or fell below market rates, FC did not introduce the

study itself into evidence, leaving the ALJ unable to conclude that VL did not provide gain

or profit in a private sense to persons connected with it. The absence of evidence regarding

reasonable salaries weighs in favor of taxation. Arts Club of Chicago v. Department of

Revenue, 334 Ill. App. 3d 235, 246 (2002). FC argues that it presented testimony that the

ALJ was bound to accept, because it was unrebutted. FC ignores that the trier of fact is

always free to disbelieve any witness. See Sorenson v. Industrial Comm’n, 281 Ill. App. 3d

373, 384 (1996).

¶ 48 With respect to management fees VL paid to FC, the ALJ found that the testimony was

confusing and contradictory and, therefore, must be construed against FC and in favor of

taxation. Sister Diane Marie testified that there were no management fees, but Wiberg, the

community controller, testified that there were “substantial” management fees. The ALJ

likened any management fees to those paid by a condominium association to a property

manager. The DOR concedes that any management fees that VL might have paid to FC

would not favor taxation, because contracts with third-party vendors are a reality of modernday life. We do not think that the issue of management fees is dispositive of whether VL

provided private gain to anyone associated with it, because the evidence was overwhelming

that VL was operated with a view to profit and was, therefore, not entitled to a charitable-use

exemption. Quad Cities Open, Inc. v. City of Silvis, 208 Ill. 2d 498 (2004), upon which FC

relies, is inapposite, because the issue in Quad Cities was not exemption but whether an

-16-
enabling statute applied to charitable organizations that operate an athletic event with the

specific purpose of promoting the common good and general welfare. Quad Cities, 208 Ill.

2d at 507.

¶ 49 C. The Benefits Derived Are for an Indefinite Number of Persons 

¶ 50 The ALJ found that the testimony and documentary evidence offered at the hearing

showed “conclusively” that VL charged substantial entrance and “up-front” fees for the

independent living units, assisted care units, and continuing care center in 2007. This finding

was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. For the independent living garden

homes, VL required residents to pay a 90% refundable entrance fee, which ranged from

$244,186 to $332,608. Residents in independent living apartments paid a 90% refundable

entrance fee–ranging from $127,596 to $252,525–depending on the square footage. Monthly

fees for assisted living were from $3,881.36 up to $4,741.16, depending on the style of the

unit, and two months’ fees were due in advance. The continuing care center charged daily

fees up to $197 plus extra fees for certain services and amenities. VLdid not waive or reduce

the entrance fees for any resident in 2007. FC contends that VL bestowed its benefits upon

an indefinite number of persons, because it did not restrict admission to Catholics or deny

persons admission based upon race or other invidious criteria. This misses the point. The

requirement of a sizeable entrance fee cannot be reconciled with the requirement that benefits

be applied to an indefinite number of people. Small, 60 Ill. 2d at 516.

¶ 51 Courts have been consistent in denying exemptions where institutions charge substantial

entrance fees. In Eden, our supreme court held that substantial entrance fees and monthly

maintenance fees placed obstacles in the way of those seeking the benefits of Eden’s

independent living units. Eden, 213 Ill. 2d at 293-94. In People ex rel. Nordlund v.

Association of the Winnebago Home for the Aged, 40 Ill. 2d 91 (1968), the corporation

operating the home claimed that the property was exclusively used for charitable and

beneficent purposes and was, therefore, exempt from taxation. Nordlund, 40 Ill. 2d at 92. Our

supreme court disagreed, saying, “[The home’s] insistence upon the payment of a sizeable

admission fee, the assignment by a resident of his assets and the health requirements

imposed, constitute [a] *** serious impediment to the tax exempt status it seeks.” Nordlund,

40 Ill. 2d at 101. In Good Samaritan Home of Quincy v. Department of Revenue, 130 Ill.

App. 3d 1036 (1985), the home was denied an exemption where the residents were required

to pay a substantial amount of “prepaid rent.” Good Samaritan, 130 Ill. App. 3d at 1041. In

Plymouth Place, Inc. v. Tully, 54 Ill. App. 3d 657 (1977), in denying an exemption, the court

took into consideration, in addition to the entrance fees charged, that an applicant had to be

in good physical and mental health for his or her age and of good moral character and that

residents paid more for larger suites. Plymouth, 54 Ill. App. 3d at 658. In denying a charitable

exemption, this court has also taken into consideration the fact that charges vary based on

the size of the unit. Wyndemere, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 460.

¶ 52 Here, VL required hefty entrance fees and monthly charges, which varied according to

the size of the home, apartment, or unit. VL also screened independent living applicants for

physical and mental health. Likewise, the absence of a legal obligation to keep and maintain

-17-
any person who becomes unable to fulfill his or her financial obligation or otherwise

becomes sick or unmanageable is inconsistent with a charitable purpose. Small, 60 Ill. 2d at

516. VL’s residency agreements for the independent living units stated that VL could

terminate residency for certain medical conditions or when the resident filed for bankruptcy

protection or was otherwise unable to meet his or her financial obligations to VL. We

conclude, like the court in Plymouth, that VL’s purpose and function was not primarily

charitable, but rather was designed “to cater to those persons who [could] payfor the services

rendered.” Plymouth, 54 Ill. App. 3d at 659.

¶ 53 D. Charity Is Dispensed to All Who Need and Apply for It 

¶ 54 The ALJ analyzed what charityVLprovided in 2007.FC characterized VL’s “contractual

allowances” as charitable. A contractual allowance was the difference between what VL’s

charges were and what payments it accepted. For instance, FC claimed that it gave market

discounts consisting of accepting less than market rates for the independent living units and

that it absorbed unreimbursed costs of Medicare. However, the record showed that, in some

cases, residents paid room and board charges that were higher than the market rate, and

Medicare discounts are not charity(Riverside Medical Center v. Department of Revenue, 342

Ill. App. 3d 603, 610 (2003)).

¶ 55 FC included the “Gift of Care” program in its contractual allowances. The record showed

that FC provided a “Gift of Care” program for new and existing residents after they

exhausted all other resources. A “Gift of Care” was subject to the financial resources

available at VL and could be withdrawn if VL’s financial resources became depleted.

Residents were required to spend down their assets before being considered for a “Gift of

Care,” and residents who received a “Gift of Care” could be asked to downsize their living

arrangements. Financial assistance rejection letters included language stating that the resident

would have to leave VL if financial assistance funds were unavailable. Documents in

evidence showed that not everyone who applied for a “Gift of Care” in 2007 was accepted

into the program. In 2007, the total amount of “Gift of Care” assistance for the continuing

care and assisted living units was $520,294 (contrasted with resident revenue of $15.6

million). Moreover, those who qualified for a “Gift of Care” were required to repay the

assistance from the 90% refundable entrance fee either upon leaving VL or upon death.

¶ 56 Under Wyndemere, the “Gift of Care” program was not charity, because, rather than

dispense the assistance to all who needed it, VL conditioned a “Gift of Care” on VL’s own

financial circumstances, and because the number of persons receiving assistance was

minimal. See Wyndemere, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 460. “Charging fees and rendering benefits to

persons not poverty-stricken does not destroy the charitable nature of an organization, but

this is true only to the extent that the organization admits persons who need and seek the

benefits offered but are unable to pay.” Wyndemere, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 460. In our case, the

evidence showed that VL was at 75% capacity in 2007, yet it did not take in anyone who was

unable to pay. A gift is a transfer of property by one to another “without any consideration

or compensation therefor.” In re Estate of Berbecker, 277 Ill. App. 201, 205 (1934). Here,

VL was selling care to those who could afford it, and, as in Wyndemere, VL’s primary

-18-
purpose was not to provide charity, but to “provide a certain enhanced lifestyle to the elderly

who can afford to pay for it.” Wyndemere, 274 Ill. App. 3d at 461.

¶ 57 E. The Organization Does Not Appear to Place Obstacles

¶ 58 The ALJ concluded that VL placed obstacles in the way of those who needed and would

have availed themselves of charity, because VL’s brochure did not state the availability of

the “Gift of Care” program, nor did the general public know of the program’s existence.

Further, the ALJ concluded that, because a “Gift of Care” was dependent upon VL’s

financial resources, there was no guarantee of its availability, making it speculative. The

record supports the ALJ’s conclusions. Moreover, the sizeable entrance fees and the

requirement that residents repay the “Gift of Care” are obstacles. See Small, 60 Ill. 2d at 516.

¶ 59 F. The Exclusive Use of the Property Is for Charitable Purposes

¶ 60 The term “exclusively used” means the primary purpose for which the property is used

and not any secondary or incidental purpose. Nordlund, 40 Ill. 2d at 101. In 2007, even

assuming that the “Gift of Care” program was charity, VL dispensed such charity to 12

persons. VL did not admit anyone who could not pay the substantial entrance fees and

monthly assessments. VL’s contracts provided for the termination of residency in the event

of bankruptcy or nonpayment. In sum, the record showed that VL was purchased and

operated with a view to profit, and its primary purpose was to house and serve upscale

seniors. Applying the Korzen factors to the instant facts, all six factors weigh in favor of

taxation.

¶ 61 3. FC’s Due Process Argument

¶ 62 FC’s final contention is that this court should reverse on the basis that the ALJ

“evidenced a deep-seated antagonism against FC and a predisposition” in favor of the DOR

and the school district so that FC’s due process rights were infringed. Fundamental principles

and requirements of due process govern administrative hearings. Williams v. Board of

Trustees of the Morton Grove Firefighters’ Pension Fund, 398 Ill. App. 3d 680, 691 (2010).

On administrative review, the court examines the procedures employed at the administrative

hearing to determine whether they were fair and impartial. Williams, 398 Ill. App. 3d at 691.

Due process is a flexible concept and requires only such procedural protections as

fundamental principles of justice and the particular situation demand. Williams, 398 Ill. App.

3d at 691. In an administrative proceeding, due process does not require a full judicial

proceeding. Williams, 398 Ill. App. 3d at 691. A fair hearing before an administrative agency

includes the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses and impartial rulings on the evidence.

Williams, 398 Ill. App. 3d at 692.

¶ 63 The DOR claims that FC has forfeited this issue by not citing to pages of the record

where such antagonism and predisposition were manifested. FC provided record citations in

its statement of facts but not in the argument section of its opening brief. While FC should

have included record citations in its argument (Scoggin v. Rochelle Community Hospital, 176

-19-
Ill. App. 3d 648, 650 (1988)), we choose to overlook the violation and address the issue.

¶ 64 FC argues that the ALJ cut short its counsel’s opening statement and limited much of its

planned evidence, thus preventing FC from making an adequate record. This assertion is

without merit. When counsel was 50 minutes into his opening statement and had not yet

touched upon the issue to be tried–the use to which VL was put in 2007–the ALJ interrupted

and gave counsel 10 minutes more to complete his opening statement. Arguing with the ALJ,

counsel stated that he would take 15 minutes. Much of the testimony FC presented was

repetitious and irrelevant. Despite the DOR’s and the school district’s repeated stipulations 10

that the Church and the Sisters were religious organizations, FC presented evidence of

Church history and doctrine from its founding. Counsel quarreled with the ALJ over almost

every adverse evidentiary ruling or simply ignored the ALJ’s rulings. The ALJ had set aside

certain days to accommodate the hearing, yet FC presented witnesses for direct examination

who were then unavailable for cross-examination. The ALJ allowed FC additional days

11

beyond those he originally scheduled, and he allowed FC to make written offers of proof.

The ALJ had the discretion to control the hearing in the best manner under the

circumstances. Sudzus v. Department of Employment Security, 393 Ill. App. 3d 814, 825

(2009). In some 8,000 pages, FC advanced its theory that VL was the Church, and counsel

have ably argued the theory on appeal. We have not found the record wanting in any respect.

FC has not shown any prejudice in the proceeding, and without a showing of prejudice a

claimed due process violation will not be sustained. Sudzus, 393 Ill. App. 3d at 825. Further,

the voluminous record does not support FC’s assertion that the ALJ was biased against

Catholicism. Accordingly, the administrative proceeding did not deny FC’s due process

rights.

¶ 65 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 66 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County,

which upheld the DOR’s decision to deny FC’s request for a property tax exemption, except

for the chapel.

¶ 67 Affirmed.

A history of the Ursulines’ mission to New Orleans in 1727 and their establishment of an 10

herb garden was not relevant, as one example.

This was not entirely within counsel’s control. For instance, Father Place’s mother was ill

11

in the hospital, and Father Place was called to her bedside to administer last rites.

-20-