The property also contains agricultural land, wooded lots, and vacant land. The board found that the taxpayer's property was used by members who lived and worked on the property, by visitors and students whose use of the property related to the taxpayer's religious programs, by members and visitors whose use did not relate to the taxpayer's religious programs, and by members who lived on the property but worked outside the community and paid rent to the taxpayer. The board also found that some of the members worked on the taxpayer's agricultural land and used the food they produced. Based on those findings, the board ruled that only certain portions of the taxpayer's property were exempt. The board denied the taxpayer's motion for rehearing, and the taxpayer appealed to this court.
Monasteries are exempt from taxation under the statute.
Applying a similar definition, the board concluded that the taxpayer was not a monastery because its members are allowed to work outside the religious community and do not take vows. We see nothing in the record to indicate that the board's conclusion is unreasonable. Emissaries members do not live in religious retirement or seclusion from the world. Instead, as the board correctly found, many members live on the taxpayer's property but work in surrounding communities and pay rent to the taxpayer. Those facts support the board's conclusion that the taxpayer was not a monastery.