NO. 4-07-0 199 Filed 2/7 /08 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT FAITH BUILDE RS CHU RCH, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE DEPARTMENT

OF REVEN UE OF THE STATE OF ILLINO IS, Defendant-Ap pellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from Circuit Court of Sangamon C oun ty No. 05MR158 Honorable Lesl ie J. Gra

ves, Jud ge Presid ing.

PRESIDING JUST ICE APP LETON deliv ered the op inio n of the cou rt: In thisact

ionfo r a dmi nistra

tiv e r evi ew, the

circuit cour t reve rs ed t

he decision of defendant, the Illinois Department of Revenue, t

o deny an exem

ption from pro per ty t ax es f or Heart la nd C hild car e C ent er and Heart la nd Pr esc hool . T he Depar tm ent app ea ls. We con clud e t

hat the Depar tm ent 's f indi ngsare no t against the manif est weight of

the ev idence. The De

partment could re asonab ly find that, in pract ical reality , the p rimary us e of th e ch ild- care c enter a nd p resch ool wa s as a day c are and t hat t he rel igio us pu rpos es of e vange lism and t heo logic al in stru ctio n were secondary. The De

partment could al so re asonab ly find that t he child-care ce nter

and preschoo

l wer e not e xempt as "school s" beca

use neither

of the m off

ere d an est abli shed,
commo nly accepte d program of ac adem ic instr

uction. T

heref ore , we reve rse t

he circuit
cou rt's ju dgment. I. BACKGROUND

As the St ate

stipulated in the

administ

rat ive hea ring , Faith Builder s is a- 2 -

re lig ious o rg ani za

tio n. It is a typ ica l ch urch, whic

h hol ds se rv

ice s tw ice a w ee k. The federal gover

nment consid ers it to be a nonprofit organization organized and operated
ex cl usiv el y f or re li gi ous pur

pos es pur sua nt

tose ct io n 5 01 (c) (3) of

the Inte rn al Re ve nue Code (26 U. S.C. §501(c)(3) (2000)).

One o f tho se reli giou s pu rpos es is to sp read th e teach ings of Ch risti ani ty. To that end, F aith Builde rs bo ught a build ing in Charle ston, Illinois, f rom B uilding Blocks Daycare and, wit h the 50 chil dren i

t "inher ited" f rom B uilding Bl ocks, star ted a combined child-care ce nter, preschool, kinder gart en, and school. Soon the number of ch ildre n in creas ed to 168
.

Faith Bu ilde rs h as "B ylaws Govern ing th e Opera tion of Ch risti an Sc hoo ls," and u nder th ese bylaw s, all of the c hild ren, even th ose in day care, are to u ndergo rel igious inst ruction. The byl aws provide a s fol lows: "[T]he p urpose of [Faith Builders] i s to promote Christian education of high academic qu ality and child[ -]care services *** by provid ing facilities for sup plementing the financi al needs o f the H ear

tla nd [S]chool s[,] co mprise d of He art land Childca re C ente r, H ear tla nd Presc

hool an d Kinder

gar ten, Heart land Academy, and Camp Heartland. The teaching of the Ch ristian faith from Go d's W ord is n ot ju st a sepa rate
su bjec t in t he c urri cu lum , bu t is i nco rporate d in to eve ry asp ect of the t otal ed uc ation and c hi ld[- ]care program ." Heartla nd C hi ldca re Cent er occ up ies app roxim ately h alf of th e bu ildi ng.- 3 -

Heartla nd P resch ool an d Ki nde rgarten a nd H eartlan d Ac ademy occ up y th e oth er hal f. Camp Hear

tland uses some of t

he prekinderg arte n rooms, b ut the record doe s not spe cify whi ch of th e prek ind ergarten rooms the c amp u ses and h ow oft en i t us es th em.

To sa tisf y th e Depart ment o f Chi ldren and F amily Servi ces, F aith Bu ilde rs call s half o f its b uilding a "childcar

e cent er, " but Fait

h Builders considers the inf ants, to ddl er s, and

pr esc hool er s to

be just as m uch in " scho ol " as the

ol der chil dr en. Inthe administ rat ive hea ring , Faith Builder s call ed its senior pa stor , St eve M cCann, as a wit nes s. He test

ifi ed t hat Heart la nd S chools p ro

vid es r el ig ious i nst ruct

ioneven to

the six-week-old children: "[t]hey may not be able t o read t he scriptures; but, instead o f ju st sh owing th em a Sesame Street vi deo or tellin g them a ni ce story[ ,] we *** us e Bible stor ies and B ible

script ures and * ** childr en's Chr istian m ate rial ." Fa

ith Builder

s also called Patricia Yow, the sup erintendent of education at Heartland Schools. She testified the sc hool wa s establi shed to fulfi ll the sc riptu ral command "to teach the Bi ble to childre n when they si

t, w hen they st and, w

hen they r

ise up[,] and when they lie do wn"-- "children," in t

his contex

t, m eaning

childre n of al

l ag es. The at to rne y fo r F ait h Buil der

s as ked Yow to "el ab or at e o n *** the te achi ng o f t

hese Bib le sto ri es [ to chil dr en s ix w ee ks t o ni ne m ont

hs ol d]. " She
answer ed: "They will ** * s[i]t with the child on their lap. They will read a story from a Bi ble--an d someti mes the re are CDs that go al ong wit h it, tha t t hey he ar the musi c an d th ey he ar

the sto ri es. Tho se c an b e pl aye d dur ing the tim e wh en t

he- 4 - children are

doing other t

hings. They can be ta

kin[g] a bott le or whate ver. But there's Chr

istian m usic playing

in the ba ckground. *** Bible st orie s *** ar e pla yed. W e al so have a program called [']Baby Einstein[ '], which shows s ome videos . It has no thin g to do with Chris tianity , but it h as to do with *** t

he acti vitiesthat are im

port ant t o their development at that age. Q. S o there's re

ligio us instructio n even f or inf ants? A. Yes ." Reg ardl ess of

the child' s age , Fa

ith Builder

s req uired the

pare nt to sign a d ocument stating, " I und erstand th at Heartland Sc hools will be teach ing dev elopmenta lly appro priate Chris tian pr inciplesto my c

hild." It is evident , fro m the direct ion of the test

imony, that one

of the major factual issues in the administra tive hearing

was as fol

lows: Given the st andard of "devel opment al[] a

ppropr iate [ness], " how much religious inst ruction did infan ts, to ddl er s, and

pr esc hool er s ac

tua ll y r eceive in t he co urse

of a da y, as o ppos ed to t

he
more mun dane se rvices o f day care? A ccordi ng to the P arent Hand book, "[ t]hou gh much of the i nfant [']s and toddle r[']s l ear ning and play is s elf

-dire cted and [self-] motivated, the staff interacts with and stimu lates the child's learning through varied activ ities and expe rience s." The handbook t herea fte r lis ts 11

such "activit

ies and expe rience s"–for

exa mple, "lea rning

to sit , cr awl, rol

l, w alk, and ot

her mo veme nt activities" and "[a]t

tending to t

he physical needs and hygiene of the children." Rel igion- 5 -

appea rs onl

y once in t

his list: "[ s]imple

Bible and childr

en stor ies, g ames, finge rpla

ys, music , s ong s, mov

em ent s, and

sound s will

be inco rpo ra

te d into t he da ily ro utin e. " The administrative law jud ge (ALJ) conclu ded that although Heartland Childcare Center and Heartland Preschool had " religious overtones," they were u sed primarily as a day care and, therefore, the portions of the bu ilding devoted to those programs shou ld be
su bjec t to a p ropert y tax.

The ALJ fou nd the day-c are center and preschool to be taxable for an additional reason: they w ere "operated with a view to profit[,] as evidenced by th e fees charged, the pun itive late payments, and the severe penalties for pickin g up a ch ild after [6 p.m.]." Fai th Bu ilders c harged tu ition of $75 per week , the pu rpose of w hic h was to "reserv [e] a space" for

the child. The pare nts had to pay the same amount of tuition on the f irst d ay of t he w eek, regard less of th e ch ild' s atten danc e. For He artland Chi ldca re Center and H ear

tla nd Presc

hool an d Kinder

gar ten, there

was a penalt

y of $5for

each day the tuit ionwa s la

te , a nd if the tuit ionand pen altie s we re

not pai d by the end of the week, t he c hi ld was dis ch arged, an d th e "s pace " was reserv ed for a noth er ch ild. If parents fai led to pi ck u p the c hild on time, th ere was a $5 p enalty for eac h 15-min ute perio d aft er 6p.m. These pe nalt ies wer e inapplicabl e to H ear

tla nd Acade my (consist ing of grades 1 through 12).

Because th e kindergarten and academy used c urricu la from Accelerated Christian Edu cation of Texas, which corresponded to pu blic-sch ool curricu la, the ALJ found they w

ere used excl

usively f or "schoo

l and r elig ious purposes" and, according ly,
reco mmende d that the por tion of the buildi ng dev

oted to thos e pro gra

ms be e xempt- 6 -

from p ro per

ty t ax es. The

ALJ re com me nde d th at

the re st o f t he b uilding , ho using

the child-care cente r and preschool , be ta xed. The D irector

adopted the ALJ's
reco mmende d decisio n.

The cir cuit court reve rsed t he denial

of the exe mption f

or He art land Childcare Center and Heartland Preschool, finding th e Director's decision, in th at respect, to be "clearly err oneous, arbitrary[,] and capriciou s[,] given the u ndispu ted fa ctsshow

n in t he reco rd

and ba sed upon t he l aw app lic ab le

to the se i ssue s. " The court's o rder

further rea ds as fo

llow s: "The [c]ou rt finds based on the evid ence that [p]lai ntiff

is entit led t o the t ax e

xempt ion cla imed b ecause [p]lai ntiff's pre[]s choo l it [ sic ] isuse d pr im ar il y f or re li gi ous and/ or sc hoo l and religi ou s pu rpos es. Cal vary Baptist Chur ch o f T il to n v. De

pa rtme nt

of Re ve nue , 349Ill . App. 3d 325 (2004). The [c]ou rt finds, based on the evidenc e, that [p]lai ntiff

is entit led t o the t ax e

xempt ion cla imed b ecause [p]l aintif f'spr e[] scho olis a

not -fo r- pro fit

scho ol . T

he [ALJ' s] fin ding to th e contrary be ing [ sic ] uns upp orted by the evidence and the [c]ourt notes that argument was not even being urg ed by the [d]efe ndant at the a dministrative hearing. The [c]ou rt finds, based on the evidenc e, that [p]lai ntiff

is entit led t o the t ax e

xempt ion cla imed b ecause [p]l aintif f'spr e[] scho oldue t o it s ed ucat ion al purp ose , t

he- 7 - evidence being u ncontradicted as to the academic program be ing fo ll owe d, even fo r t

he yo unge st s tude nts , a nd t he [p]lai ntiff

sparin g the Stat e the e xpense of pay ing fo r Pre -K edu cation whi ch i t wou ld be requ ired to do i f the paren ts electe d to pursue the State-sponsor ed Pre-K education, of which the [c]ou rt takes judici al notice. " This appea

l fol lowe d. II. ANAL YSIS A. Standards of Review
1. Statu tory Inter

pretat ion Article IX, section 6, of the Illinois Constituti on provides: " The General Asse mbly by law may exempt from taxation on ly *** property u sed ** * for sch ool, rel igious, cemetery[, ] and char itable purpo ses." I

ll. Const. 197 0, ar

t. I X, §6 . Thus, sta tut or y la w co ntr ol s the ex em pti on o f pr

ope rt y fr om tax ation(sub

jec t, of course, to the catego rical l imitations of articl e IX, sect ion 6). We inte rpre

t sta tutes de novo ( In re Application of the Cou nty Treasurer , 347 I ll. App. 3d 7 69, 775 , 807 N.E. 2d 104 2, 1 048 (20 04)), and when interpr eting stat utes ex empti ng cer

tain pr oper ty fr om ta xat ion, we constr ue the exempti ons
narr owly ( Swan k v . D ep ar

tm en t o f R

ev en ue , 336 Ill. App . 3d 851, 855, 785 N.E.2d 20 4, 207 (20 03)). "' Taxa

tion is t he rule[ ;] tax

exe mption i s the ex

ceptio n.'" City of Ch icago

v. Il li noi s D ep ar

tm en t o f R

ev en ue , 147

Ill. 2d 484, 491, 590 N. E.2d 478, 481 (1 992), quoti ng Rogers Park P ost No . 108, th e Ameri can L egion , Departm ent of Illin ois v.- 8 -

Brenza , 8 Il

l. 2d 286 , 290, 134 N. E.2d 292, 295 (1 956).

2. Pu re Question s of Fact Section 8-40 of the Property Tax Code (Code) provid es that jud icial review of the Department's decisions shall be in accordance with the Admini strative Review Law (735 I LCS 5/ 3-101 to 3-1 13 (West 2006 )). 35 I LCS 200/8-4 0 (West 2006). Section 3-1 10 of the Adm inis tr ative

Re vie w L aw say

s: "T he f indi ngsand

con clus ion s of

the administ rat ive ag ency on q

uestions of

fact shall be hel d to be

prima facie true and correct." 735 ILCS 5 /3-110 (West 2006). Courts interpret section 3-110 as meanin g that
an a ge ncy' s fi ndin gs of

fa ct w ill stand unl ess the

y ar e against the ma nif est wei ght of the evid enc e. Ede n R

etir em en t C en te r, In c. v. De pa rtme nt

of Re ve nue , 213 Ill. 2d 273, 284, 821 N. E. 2d 2 40, 24 6 ( 200 4). "Ag ain st t he m ani fe st w

eig ht o f t he e vid enc e" m ea ns t

he
reco rd cl ear

ly re quires t

he opposit e finding

or, in other

words , the age ncy's findin g is arbitra ry, u nreas onab le, or no t base d on the e vid enc e. Farmer s Automob ile I nsurance Ass'n v. Gitel son , 344 I ll. App. 3d 888, 892, 801 N. E.2d 106 4, 106 7-68 (2003). In r eview

ing the age ncy's decisi on, we

will keep in mind that

the ag ency has a du ty to resolve all debatabl e questions in favor of taxation, as do we. See Rogers Park Po st No . 10 8 , 8 Ill. 2d at 290, 134 N .E. 2d at

295 ; Swank , 336 Ill. App . 3d at 856, 785 N. E. 2d a

t 2 08. The

par ty c laimi ng t he e xe mpt ionhas t he b urde n of

pr ovi ng t

he entitlem ent there

to, and be cause any factual amb iguities will be r esolved in fa

vor of taxati on, th e proo f nec ess arily mu st be c lear and con clu siv e. Swank , 336 Ill. App. 3d at 855-56, 7 85 N.E.2 d at 20 8.- 9 - 3. Applying the Law to Undisp uted Facts The Department cites a decision by the Second District ho lding that if an agency applied the law to u ndispu ted facts, courts shou ld use a slightly d eferential standard of

revi ew, r

ever sing the decision o nly in ca ses of clear er ror . The S econd District s aid: " Here, the Departmen t's task was to app ly a given legal standard to
un dis pu ted fac ts. Th us , the De partme nt co nfron ted a ' mixed qu esti on of law an d fac t,' and we m

ust accept

the De partment' s answer

unless it i s clearly e rro neous." Cook Co mm unic at

io ns M ini st ri es v. De

pa rtme nt

of Re ve nue , 345

Ill . App. 3d 753, 758, 803 N.E.2 d 524, 528 (2004).

The su preme court, however, prescribes a de novo stan dard o f revie w. Eleve n months a

fte r the Second

Distr ict dec ided Cook C ommunicat ions , the supreme court held as fol

lows: "[T]he Depar

tment's decision as to whether [the] pla intiff's property i s exempt from taxati on dep ends s olely on th e applic ation of th e approp riate leg al st andar

d to t he undisputed fa cts, which is a quest ion of l aw." Eden Re

tire ment , 213 Il l. 2d at 284, 821

N.E.2 d at 246 ; see also City of Ch icago , 147 Ill. 2d at 491, 590 N. E. 2d a t 4 81 . O bvi ousl y, the supr em e co urt 's ho ldi ng m ust p re vai l over tha t o f t he Second District. To the extent that this app eal requires the application of legal principl es to undispute d facts, our standar d of review

is de novo . B. The S cope of

the Te rm "R

elig ious Purposes" Faith Bu ilders claims an exemption u nder section 15-40(a) of the Code, which provid es as f

ollo ws: "(a) Prop erty u sed e xclu siv ely fo r:- 10 - (1) religious purposes, or (2) s ch ool an d reli giou s pu rpos es, or (3) orphanages qualifi es f

or an e xe mpt ionas l ong

as i t isnot used wit h a view to prof

it." 35 I LCS 200/1 5-40(a) (West 2006). Courtsinter

pret the te rm "e

xclusive ly," i n the ab ove-q

uoted st atute , as m eaning "primarily" ( McKenzie v. Johnson , 98 Ill. 2d 87, 98, 456 N .E.2d 73, 78 (1983)); an incident al or

secondary purpose , if not for prof it, w ill not def

eat the exempti on ( Board of Education of Gl en Ellyn Community Consolidated School D istrict No . 89 v. De pa rt me nt of Re ve nue , 356 I

ll. App. 3d 165, 177, 825 N. E.2d 746 , 757 (2005)). The Department rejected Faith Builders' c laim that the day-care center and pre school we re used pr imar ily fo r "r elig

ious purposes. " Fait

h Builders contend s that the De

partme nt's decision is fatal ly flawe d because the Depar tment used too
nar row a def init ionof "r el ig ious p urpo ses ." Inher re com me nde d de cisi on (whic h the Depar tm ent ado pte d), the

ALJ sai d: "A ppl ica nt' s r el ig ious a

rg ument f ail s be caus e t

he term [']r eligious purpose['] *** means the use of the pro perty by a r eligious society or body of perso ns as a pl ace f

or publ ic wor ship." The AL J cite d People ex rel. McCu llough v. Deutsche Evan gelisch Luth erische Jehov ah Gemeinde Ungeaenderter Augsburgischer Confession , 249 Ill. 13 2, 94 N.E. 162 (1911). A ctu ally, th e su preme cou rt said in Deutsche

Evang elisch : "As appl ied tothe uses of prope rty, a re

ligio us purpose
means a use of s uch proper ty by a religious socie

ty or body of perso ns as a st ate d place for public wor

ship, Sunday sc

hools[, ] and relig

ious instruct

ion." Deutsche

Evang elisch ,- 11 -

249 Ill. at 136-37, 94 N.E. at 165. Since d ecidi ng Deutsche Evang elisch , the supreme court has explain ed that it did not in tend the list therein to be exhau stive ( People ex rel. Carson v. Muldoon , 306 Ill . 234, 2 38, 13 7 N.E. 86 3, 864 ( 1922), overruled on other gro unds by McKenzie , 98 Ill. 2d at 99-100, 456 N .E.2d at 79), and courts have constru ed the te rm "r

elig ious purpose" m ore

libe ral ly ( Mount Calvar

y Baptist Church, Inc. v. Zehnder , 302 I

ll. App. 3d 6 61, 668, 706 N .E. 2d 100 8, 1 013 (1 998) ). Fo r exampl e, in Ca lv ar y Ba pt ist Chur ch o f T il to n v. De

pa rtme nt

of Re ve nue , 349Ill . App. 3d 325, 333, 812 N .E. 2d 1, 7 (2004 ), we held t hat the ter m "re ligio us purposes" incl

uded "fel lowship and e vange lism ."

Even thou gh the ALJ stated the defin ition of "religious p urposes" in a way that w as mor e re stric tive e ven tha n Deutsche

Evang elisch –saying

it me ant onl

y the use of proper

ty for public wor

ship--the ALJ evidently did not apply t his overly re strictive defi niti on, fo r sh e the reafter ad dress ed Fai th B ui lders ' argu ment t hat t he c hi ld-c are cente r and p reschoo

l wer e par t and parcel

of a " rel igious school " rat her than merely a day-care ce nter ("Fait

h Builders uses the subject primarily as a day[-]care ce nter fo r young children where fe es are char ged, r ather than a

relig ious school"). If, in t

he ALJ's view, the te rm "r

elig ious purposes" w

ere confine d to publ ic wor ship and did not include religi ou s sc hoo ls, th ere wou ld h ave be en n o poi nt in deci din g whe ther F aith Bu ilde rs operat ed the child-care ce nter and preschool primar ily as a day car

e as opposed to a religious sch ool. Evidently, the ALJ assu med that "religious pu rposes" inc luded religious ins truction. See Evangelical Teacher Training Ass' n v. Novak , 11 8 Il l. App. 3d 21, 26 -27, 45 4 N.E. 2d 836, 839-4 0 (1983).- 12 - C. T he Exte nt to Which the Chil d-Car e Center and Preschoo

l Wer e Used f or "R elig ious Purposes" In its bylaws and in th e testimony of its witness es, Faith Bui lders declared its purpose of instructing infants, toddl ers, and preschoolers in t he doctrines of Christianity and evangelizing them and their parents. The ALJ found no bad fait h or pret ense in t

his declarat

ion of a religious purpose . Ther efor e, we accept Fait h Builders' characterization of the pu rpose of its activities. See Fairview Ha ven v. De

partme nt of Re ve nue , 153 Ill. App. 3d 763, 773, 506 N.E.2d 3 41, 348 (1987). It is beyond disp ute that , un der th e cas e law, reli giou s in stru ctio n qu alifi es as a religi ou s pu rpos e. Evangelica

l Teacher

Training Ass'n , 11 8 Il

l. App. 3d at 2 6-27 , 45 4 N. E.2d a t 839- 40; Deutsche

Lutheri sch , 249 Ill. at 136-37, 94 N.E. at 164. Intentions, however, are not enough. We must ask whether, in actuality or practice, the buildi ng is us ed primarily for that religious pu rpose. See Fairview Haven , 153 Ill. App. 3d at 773, 506 N.E.2d at 348. Mor e precisely, the Department asks that question- -a purel

y fact ual questi on--and w

e ask w hether the De partment' s answer

is against t he manifest weig

ht of the evidence. A reasonable tr ier of f act would not necessarily have

to find that Fa

ith Builders uses its child-care center and preschool fo r the primar

y purpose of rel igious instruction. Infants, toddl ers, and preschoolers have
an ex tre mely limit ed capa city fo r assi mila ting t heolog ical concept s. Wit

h childre n so youn g, the supervisi ng adults' primary pu rpose, from 6 a. m. to 6 p.m., will inevitably be day c are-- and F aith Bu ilde rs' d escri ptiv e litera ture reflect s th at reali ty. In a list of 11 task s an d act ivi ties , religi on ap pears onc e. Argu ably, t hat i s bec aus e the ch ildre n are simply too you ng for sustained religiou s instruc tion and their primary need is day care.- 13 - Faith Bui lders argue s that i ts only reason for taki ng thes e chi ldren in to its
care is to spr ead t he Gospe

l to them a nd their

pare nts and, there

for e, it uses Hear

tla nd Chi ldca re Cent er and Heartla nd P resch ool p rimari ly for a religi ou s pu rpos e. A n ot-fo rprof it cor pora tion made an analogous arg ument in Fairview Haven . I n tha t case, the congr ega tions of four Apo stol ic Christ

ian churches or

ganiz ed Fai rvie

w Have n,
con sist ing of inde pen dent-livi ng a

par tm ent s an d interme dia te -ca re ro omsfo r t

he elderly
. Fairview Haven , 153 Ill . App. 3d at 767, 506 N.E. 2d at 343. The amended articles of incorporation stated that the pu rpose for which Fai rview was organized was religi ou s, ch aritab le, and the c are and keep ing o f elderl y pe ople. Fairview Haven , 153 Ill. App. 3d at 767, 506 N .E.2d at 343. Fair

view arg ued that it used its facility pr imarily f or a rel igious purpose because by caring fo r the elde rly, it "implement[e d] the church's ministry by tyin g preaching to action. *** Ch ristian service work [was] mandated by script ure." Fairview Haven , 153 Ill. A pp. 3 d at 768 -69, 506 N.E.2d at 345. We held as follow

s: "Here it is not

contested t

hat the opera

tion of Fa ir vie w provi ded

an o ppor

tunity f or me mbers of

the Apo stoli c Ch risti an fai th to carry o ut C hri stia n se rvic e work , care fo r the e lderly , and e ngage i n eva ngeli zatio n. Ho wever, oper ation

of the nursing hom e was not nece ssary f or t hese religious pu rposes, which could also h ave been accomp lish ed throu gh oth er means. (See gen erally Yakima First Baptist Homes, Inc. v. Gray (1973), 82 W ash. 2d 295,- 14 - 510 P.2d 2 43; Christian Ret irement Homes, I nc. v. Boar d of Equalization(1970) , 186 Neb. 11, 18 0 N.W.2 d 136.) In Yakima [,] t

he tax payer arg ued that c are

of the age d was a relig ious pu rpose. The court noted that t

he practice of char ity, k indn ess to ot

her per son s an d in p ar

tic ula r t o t he aged, and the practice of all virtues are encouraged by religious organizations; h owever, it cannot be stated that they are religious pu rposes withi n commonly accepted definit ions of t he wor d. *** It is not co ntest ed that

Fair view operat ed as a not-for-pr

ofit business with a contra ct, re quirements for residency, provisions for payme nt, and pro visions for discharge. T

he corpo rat e purpose

included t

he car e and keeping of the elderly. Fairview's method of operation was businesslike. The Depar tment's det erminat

ion based upon the act ual met hod of operat

ion that Fair view wa s not e

xempt for religious purpose s was suppor ted b y the ev idence. " Fairview Haven , 153 Ill . App. 3d at 774-75, 506 N. E.2d at 349. In a s en se , e

ve ry thi ng a d eepl y de vo ut p erson

do es has a rel ig io us purpose. But if tha

t for mulati on det erm ined the exe mption f

rom p rope rty t axe s, rel igious ide ntity w

ould ef fect ively be the

sole crit erio n. A church could open a- 15 -

restauran t, for instan ce, and bec aus e waiters attemp ted to evan gelize cu stomers wh ile taking their orde rs, the r esta

urant w ould be e xempt . But t

he operation

of a r esta urant is not necessary for evangelism and religious i nstruction , although, like any oth er social activity, it can provide th e occasion for those religiou s purpos es. The same could be sai d of a da y-ca re fa cil ity . D ay c ar e is sim ply not a "r el ig ious p urpo se" wit

hin t he commonly accepted defini tion of that term.

The De part ment could re asonab

ly find that t he operation

of He art land Child care Center and Heartland P resch ool was bu sines slike an d more ch aracteristi c of a
com me rc

ial day car e t han a fa cil ity used primarily f

or re lig ious p urpo ses . Fift

y of the chi ldren wh o were in B ui lding B locks s tayed. Paren ts mu st pay w eekly tu ition to "r ese rv e a spa ce" fo r t

he ch ild , a nd F ait

h Buil der

s do es n ot

see m t o care

whethe r t

he child is in a

tte ndance a s long

as the t uition is paid . Fa

ith Builder

s charg es la

te f ees a nd turns away th e chi ldren of no npay ing paren ts ("y ou w ill be asked to with draw you r child fro m the ce nter "). We

do not q uestion t he econo mic or

pract ical ne cessity of the se measures, but they suggest a busi ness relationshi p more than a religious one.

Ju st bec aus e Fait h B ui lders ch arges tu itio n an d fees to kee p th e doo rs open, it does not

necessarily f

ollow t hat it opera

tes the child-care

center and preschool "wi th a vie w t o pr of it. " Se e 35

ILCS 200 /1 5- 40( a) (

Wes t 2 006 ). We do n ot re ach t he question of whether Fa ith Builders operates those prog rams "with a view to profit ," for unle ss t he pr ope rt y is " used

ex clus ive

ly f or *** r el ig ious p urpo ses ," the ab sen ce o f t

he pro fit mot ive is ir re le van t. 35 ILCS 200 /1 5- 40( a) ( Wes t 2 006 ). As w

e ha ve h el d, the finding that the cor

responding port

ions of the building are not used primar ily for- 16 -

religious pu rposes is not against th e manifest weight of the evidence.

D. The Cl aimed Exem

ption as a Not -for-Prof it School The Departm ent gran ted an exemp tion for th e kin dergarte n an d Ac ademy
. Faith Bu ilde rs wan ts to e xtend the e xempt ion to th e rest o f the bu ildi ng, i.e. , the childcare center an d presc hool. In ad dition to an exempti on u nder sec tion 15-40 (a), Faith Builders arg

ues the child-care center and preschool ar

e exempt under section 15-35

of the Code, w

hich provides as follows: "Al l proper ty donated by t

he United Stat es for scho olpurp ose s, and

al l pr ope rt y of scho ol s, not

sol d or le ase d or

ot her wis e use d with a view to prof

it, is exe mpt, whether

owned by a re sident or non[]re sident of this Sta te or by a cor pora tion inco rporate d in any st ate of the United States." 35

ILC S 200/ 15- 35 (Wes t 200 6).

Courts ask two q

uestions when deciding whether proper ty is a "school" for purpos es of section 15-35. First, does the property "contain[] a school *** offer[ing] an established, commonly accept ed progr am of academic instruction"? Chicago & Northea st Illinois District C ouncil of Carpent ers Apprentice & Trainee Pr

ogram v. De pa rt me nt of Re ve nue , 293 Ill. App. 3d 600, 608, 688 N.E.2d 721, 726 (199 7). "Under this standard , the cou rts have b een in hos pitable tow ards grantin g a sch ool exempti on to sch ools wh ose cu rricu lum d [o] no t cons ist of tradi tional s ubj ect matter commo n to accepted school s and inst itutions o f le arning

***." Chicag o & Nor

theast , 29 3 Ill . App. 3d at 608 , 688 N.E.2d at 727. Sec ond, do es "th e program in qu estion su bstanti ally less en[] wha t wou ld oth erwis e hav e been a govern menta l obli gation , i.e. , [woul d] t he stat e [be ] other

wise require d to of

fer such a prog ram

of st udy in a tax-supporte d public- 17 -

school"? Chicag o & Nor theast , 293 Ill. App. 3d at 609, 688 N. E.2d at 7 27. We do not
rea ch the seco nd questio n, fo r the reco rd appe ars to conta in no evid ence t

hat Hea rtl and Childcare Center and Heartland Preschool offer curricu la "consist[i ng] of traditional subject m att er co mmon t o accepted schoo ls and i nstitutio ns of l ear ning. " Chicago & Nor theast , 293 Ill. App. 3d at 608, 688 N.E.2d at 727. III. C ONCLUSION For the foregoi ng reasons , we reverse th e circu it cou rt's ju dgment. Reve rsed. McCUL LOUGH and T URNE R, JJ., c onc ur.