Source: https://oregon.lexroll.com/catland-v-yamhill-county-assessor-tc-md-100353b-or-tax-2-24-2011/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 16:17:57+00:00

Document:
CATLAND, Plaintiff, v. YAMHILL COUNTY ASSESSOR, Defendant.
TC-MD 100353B.In the Oregon Tax Court. Magistrate Division, Property Tax.
JILL A. TANNER, Presiding Magistrate.
Plaintiff appeals the denial by Defendant of its application for a property tax exemption for the 2004-05 through 2010-11 ” beyond” tax years. A telephone trial was held with Magistrate Jeffrey S. Mattson on November 2, 2010. A. John Ochsner (Ochsner), property owner, appeared and testified on behalf of Plaintiff. Brian A. Linke appeared and testified on behalf of Defendant. The record closed on December 13, 2010.
The subject property has two exterior areas surrounded by eight foot high chain-linked fencing, with another four feet of fencing connected on the top rail, creating a “T” configuration.
After Defendant denied Plaintiff’s first application on March 16, 2010, Plaintiff timely appealed to this court on April 1, 2010. See ORS 305.280.
Taken together, ORS 307.112 and 307.162 provide that an exemption claim for any given tax year beginning July 1 must be filed on or before April 1. A claim for exemption may be filed on or before December 31 of the tax year if a late filing fee is paid.
Plaintiff filed its application on January 26, 2010, seeking exemptions for tax years 2004 through 2011. For the 2010-11 tax year, Plaintiff’s application was filed timely because the filing date was before the April 1, 2010, deadline.
that request result in a favorable outcome for Plaintiff. Because Plaintiff did not exist as a corporation until 2010, it may not apply for exemptions for any prior tax years.
Plaintiff’s claims regarding tax years 2004-05 through 2009-10 are dismissed. The only remaining tax year at issue is 2010-11.
When examining exemption statutes, the guiding principle is that “[t]axation is the rule and exemption from taxation is the exception.” Dove Lewis Mem. Emer. Vet. Clinic v. Dept. of Rev. (Dove Lewis), 301 Or 423, 426, 723 P2d 320 (1986) (citation omitted). In its analysis, the court is guided by the rule that property tax exemption statutes are strictly but reasonably construed. SW Oregon Pub. Def. Services v. Dept. of Rev. (SW Oregon), 312 Or 82, 88-89, 817 P2d 1292 (1991). “Strict but reasonable construction does not require the court to give the narrowest possible meaning to an exemption statute. Rather, it requires an exemption statute be construed reasonably, giving due consideration to the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute and the legislative intent.” North Harbour Corp. v. Dept. of Rev., 16 OTR 91, 95 (2002) (citation omitted). In exemption cases, the plaintiffs bear the burden of proof and must establish their case by a preponderance of the evidence. See ORS 305.427. A “[p]reponderance of the evidence means the greater weight of evidence, the more convincing evidence.” Feves v. Dept. of Revenue, 4 OTR 302, 312 (1971).
(We Care Oregon), TC-MD No 091226B, WL 4655319 at *4 (Nov 18, 2010); OAR 150-307.130-(A)(1)(b). Second, Plaintiff must separately account for funds and donations used for charitable purposes. We Care Oregon, WL 4655319 at *4; OAR 150-307.130-(A)(1)(c).
If Plaintiff fails to meet any element of the three-part test, Plaintiff does not qualify for property tax exemption.
organization’s articles of incorporation and bylaws. See Dove Lewis, 301 Or at 427 (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s bylaws state that it is organized for the “charitable, scientific and educational purpose of Animal Welfare Wildlife Conservation.” Although Plaintiff’s bylaws are vague, Plaintiff’s articles and bylaws are sufficient to satisfy the first element.
The second prong of the SW Oregon test requires that the organization perform in a manner that furthers its purported charitable objective. SW Oregon, 312 Or at 89. To determine whether an organization is performing in a manner that furthers its charitable purpose, courts look at the individual activities of the organization. We Care Oregon, WL 4655319 at *5, citin Goodwill Indus. of the Columbia Willamette, Inc. v. Benton County Assessor, TC-MD No 060676D, WL 1168679 at *4 (Apr 18, 2007) Hazelden Springbrook, Inc. v. Yamhill County Assessor, TC-MD No 031037D, WL 1237628 at *4 (May 11, 2004). Further, the activities must “be for the direct good or benefit of the public or community at large. Public benefits must be the primary purpose rather than a by-product. An organization that is established primarily for the benefit of its members, is not a qualifying charity.” OAR 150-307.130-(A)(3)(b).
must be doing good to others rather than being organized for the convenience of those who use its services.” Id.
(citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted).
Although Plaintiff’s bylaws state that it is formed for a charitable purpose and its activities include “providing food, water, shelter, and sanctuary to homeless animals and wildlife.” Plaintiff is not currently accepting any stray or feral cats from the public, nor is it advertising or promoting its purported educational or scientific activities to the community at large.
personal pleasures of keeping pet cats and studying electrical engineering. Further, by not accepting cats or conducting advertising of any kind, Plaintiff is effectually secluding itself from the public. Plaintiff is not involved in activity that is primarily charitable, nor does it directly benefit the public or community and large. Plaintiff fails the second-part of the SW Oregon test.
Having failed the second of the three-part test, Plaintiff does not qualify as a charitable organization and does not meet the statutory requirements of ORS 307.130.
Plaintiff also claims that it is exempt as a scientific institution. “[A] * * * scientific organization cannot qualify for the exemption unless a significant portion of its activities have a charitable objective.” Rogue Gem v. Josephine County Assessor, 17 OTR 446, 451 (2003), citing Theatre West of Lincoln City, Ltd. v. Dept. of Rev., 319 Or 114, 117, 873 P2d 1083 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted).
overall, not to any specific part or operation. We Care Oregon, WL 4655319 at *7, citing Mercy Medical Center, Inc. v. Dept. of Rev., 12 OTR 305, 307 (1992). “An element of gift and giving must be present in the organization’s activities, relating to those it serves.” OAR 150-307.130(3)(d). The element of giving must be viewed from the perspective of the recipient of the charitable giving. See SW Oregon, 312 Or at 91.
Plaintiff insists that it relieves a government burden and that its activities involve a gift or giving. Plaintiff argues that local governments spend “hundreds of millions of dollars every year controlling stray animals, from neighborhood cats defecating in sandboxes to feral cats living in urban areas.” In addition, Plaintiff alleges that cats are not a part of the natural eco-system of the United States, and their presence causes unnecessary suffering to wild animals. Plaintiff has not proffered evidence showing that it has accepted new cats from the public since its creation. The evidence offered by Plaintiff indicates that its activities since its inception are simple: to house and feed 30 cats on the subject property and to supply water to wildlife. That activity does not qualify; the government has no “obligation” to gather feral animals and hold them indefinitely in caged areas. Plaintiff’s own evidence describes how the widespread “trap-test-vaccinate-alter-and-release” program can be used “without endangering populations of birds and other wild animals.” (Ptf’s Ex 7.) Plaintiff has not met its burden of proof in showing that it relieves a government burden. Failure to do so, however, is not fatal to a claim of exemption.
charity involves “giving to the poor and needy.”U.S. Atheists, WL 34148929 at *3, quoting Corp. of LDS, 14 OTR at 249. This court has also held that, in order to qualify as a charitable institution, an organization must be for the “good or benefit of human beings.” Care for Kids, Inc. v. Yamhill County Assessor (Care For Kids), TC-MD No 991297D at 7 (July 10, 2000).
In Care for Kids, the organization seeking exemption stated its purpose as the “`providing of care of children away from their homes’ with the ancillary benefit of `enabling individuals to be gainfully employed.'” Id. Not only did the organization give a gift of education to the children, it directly gave to the public by providing childcare that would result in the opportunity for parents to remain employed.
Plaintiff argues that its gift or giving is the “food and medical treatment provided to the stray and feral feline residents of CatLand.” (Ptf’s Ltr at 7, Dec 10, 2010.) Plaintiff models itself after the Oregon Humane Society, a reputable charitable institution. The court disagrees that Plaintiff resembles the Humane Society, as this matter is in stark contrast to Care for Kids and Humane Societies nationwide. While the Humane Society provides gifts directly to the animals it protects, it also has the ancillary gift of allowing people to adopt pets at reduced prices, providing spay/neutering services, and providing services to members of the public that are no longer able to care for their pets. Similarly, the organization in Care for Kids provided gifts to the children, it also gave parents childcare so they could remain employed. Plaintiff gives gifts only to the cats on the subject property, not to the public as well. The public is not an additional recipient. Plaintiff has not proven that it provides a public benefit.
Because Plaintiff has not proven that it is a charitable organization or that a significant portion of its activities have a charitable purpose, it does not qualify as a scientific institution either.
IT IS THE DECISION OF THIS COURT that Plaintiffs appeal is denied.
Dated this ___ day of February 2011.
If you want to appeal Decision, file a Complaint in theRegular Division of the Oregon Tax Court, by mailing to:1163 State Street, Salem, OR 97301-2563; or by hand delivery to:Fourth Floor, 1241 State Street, Salem, OR.
Your Complaint must be submitted within 60 days after the dateof the Decision or Decision becomes final and cannot bechanged.
This document was signed by Presiding Magistrate Jill A.Tanner on February 24, 2011. The Court filed and entered thisdocument on February 24, 2011.
 Unless otherwise noted, all references to the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) and to the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) are to 2009.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.