Source: https://stc.mo.gov/legal/northwest-health-services-inc-v-ladonna-jones-assessor-holt-county-2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 14:27:39+00:00

Document:
The Decision of the Holt County Board of Equalization (BOE) is SET ASIDE. Northwest Health Services, Inc. (Complainant) presented substantial and persuasive evidence establishing the subject property is exempt under Article X, Section 6 of the Missouri Constitution and Section 137.100 RSMo.
Complainant appeared by counsel John Lentell.
Ladonna Jones, Assessor of Holt County Missouri (Respondent) appeared pro se.
Complainant contests the taxability of the subject property under Article X, Section 6 of the Missouri Constitution and Section 137.100 RSMo.
Motion Hearing. The issue of exemption was presented at an evidentiary hearing on February 26, 2019, at the Holt County Courthouse, Oregon, Missouri.
Description and Use of Subject Property. The subject property consists of commercial real property and business personal property owned by Complainant. Complainant provides health care services on the real property and with the business personal property including medical, dental and psychological services. The property is not held as an investment.
Respondent denied exemption to the subject property.
Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization denied exemption to the subject property.
Hummer testified that Complainant has a discount prescription drug program and that the amount of payment for prescriptions by patients is dependent upon their poverty level and family size. Patients pay between cost +$10 (if at or below 100% of poverty level) and no discount (if above 200% of poverty level). He testified that Complainant has the only counselor in Holt County, the only dentist in Holt County, that Complainant allows the Holt County Health Department to operate the WIC clinic out of the Mound City clinic for no charge, that Complainant aids in assisting Holt County combat the opioid crisis, and that Complainant has applied for a federal grant to aid in the opioid crisis.
Exemption Established. Complainant presented substantial and persuasive evidence that the subject property is exempt from ad valorem taxation under the Missouri Constitution.
A presumption exists that the assessed value fixed by the BOE is correct. Rinehart, 363 S.W.3d at 367; Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348; Hermel, Inc., 564 S.W.2d at 895. “Substantial and persuasive controverting evidence is required to rebut the presumption, with the burden of proof resting on the taxpayer.” Cohen, 251 S.W.3d at 348. Substantial evidence can be defined as such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Cupples Hesse Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 329 S.W.2d 696, 702 (Mo. 1959). Persuasive evidence is evidence that has sufficient weight and probative value to convince the trier of fact. Cupples Hesse Corp., 329 S.W.2d at 702. The persuasiveness of evidence does not depend on the quantity or amount thereof but on its effect in inducing belief. Brooks v. General Motors Assembly Division, 527 S.W.2d 50, 53 (Mo. App. 1975). See also, Westwood Partnership v. Gogarty, 103 S.W.3d 152 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003); Daly v. P.D. George Co., 77 S.W.3d 645 (Mo. App E.D. 2002); Reeves v. Snider, 115 S.W.3d 375 (Mo. App. S.D. 2003).
The Hearing Officer is not bound by any single formula, rule or method in determining true value in money and is free to consider all pertinent facts and estimates and give them such weight as reasonable they may be deemed entitled. The relative weight to be accorded any relevant factor in a particular case is for the Hearing officer to decide. St. Louis County v. Security Bonhomme, Inc., 558 S.W.2d 655, 659 (Mo. banc 1977); St. Louis County v. STC, 515 S.W.2d 446, 450 (Mo. 1974); Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. STC, 436 S.W.2d 650 (Mo. 1968).
The dominant use of the property is for the benefit of an indefinite number of people and directly or indirectly benefits society generally. Franciscan Tertiary Province of Missouri v. State Tax Commission, 566 S.W.2d 213, 224 (Mo. banc 1978); Twitty v. State Tax Commission, 896 S.W.2d 680, 684 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995).
The property must be owned and operated on a not-for-profit basis. The property “must be dedicated unconditionally to the charitable activity in such a way that there will be no profit, presently or prospectively, to individuals or corporations. Any gain achieved in use of the building must be devoted to achievement of the charitable objectives of the project.” Franciscan at 224. This does not mean that the property or charity cannot operate “in the black”.
In order for a property to be exempt from taxation for state, county or local purposes, the property must be actually and regularly used exclusively for a charitable purpose, as charity is defined by Salvation Army v. Hoehn, 188 S.W.2d 826 (Mo. banc 1945). “Charity” is therein defined as “… a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving there bodies of disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting or maintaining the public buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of government.” Salvation Army at 830. Exemption rest on the use of the property not merely charitable character of the owner. The phrase “regularly used exclusively” has been interpreted to mean the primary inherent and dominate use of the property as opposed to a mere secondary and incidental use.
The property must be used such that it is available to an indefinite group of people. The public nature of a charity is diminished when it is systematically denied to those who need and can least afford the service.
Jackson County v. State Tax Commission, 521 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. banc 1975), held that a charitable use includes a hospital so long as it is operated in a not-for-profit manner and is available to rich and poor alike. A hospital which meets the test is a charity. No further proof that a certain number or percentage of indigent patients are served is necessary.
Complainant provides health care including medical, dental and psychological care at and with the subject property, in an unserved area and to underserved individuals. Complainant provides such services to all, whether rich or poor. Complainant offers a sliding scale billing practice depending upon financial condition. Complainant offers a discounted prescription drug program based upon financial condition and size of family. No one is denied health care. There was no evidence that anyone had been denied treatment because of inability to pay. There was no evidence of any profit to individuals or corporations. Complainant assist in addressing the opioid crisis in Holt County. Complainant allows the Holt County Health Department to operate the WIC clinic out of the Mound City clinic for no charge. The provision of the health care services provided by Complainant in the subject property clinic clearly qualifies as an appropriate use under the Salvation Army definition in that medical treatment directly benefits people by relieving their bodies of disease, suffering or constraint. See St. John’s Health System v. Strahan, Appeal No. 00-89501 and 00-89502.
The determination of taxability of the subject property as determined by the BOE is SET ASIDE. The subject property is determined to be exempt.
The Collector of Holt County, as well as the collectors of all affected political subdivisions therein, shall continue to hold the disputed taxes pending the possible filing of an Application for Review, unless said taxes have been disbursed pursuant to a court order under the provisions of Section 139.031.8 RSMo.
SO ORDERED March 15th, 2019.
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been sent electronically or mailed postage prepaid this 15th day of March, 2019, to: Complainant(s) and/or Counsel for Complainant(s), the County Assessor and/or Counsel for Respondent and County Collector.

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