Case Name: Yakima First Baptist Homes, Inc., Respondent, v. Dale A. Gray et al., Appellants
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1973-05-24
Citations: 82 Wash. 2d 295
Docket Number: No. 42453
Parties: Yakima First Baptist Homes, Inc., Respondent, v. Dale A. Gray et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 82
Pages: 295–307

Head Matter:
[No. 42453.
En Banc.
May 24, 1973.]
Yakima First Baptist Homes, Inc., Respondent, v. Dale A. Gray et al., Appellants.
Lincoln E. Shropshire, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jerry D. Talbott, Deputy, for appellants.
Pat Cockrill (of Hovis, Cockrill & Roy), for respondent.
Ronald L. Hendry, Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael B. Hansen, Deputy, amici curiae.

Opinion:
Wright, J.
This is an action wherein respondent, Yakima First Baptist Homes, Inc., seeks to have property commonly known as Sun Tower declared exempt from taxation', to have an injunction issued against certain county officials to prevent the assessing and collecting of taxes upon the property in the future, and to recover certain taxes previously paid under protest.
Respondent is a nonprofit corporation of the state of Washington, having been incorporated in 1966. There are 11 persons on the corporation's board of directors who serve without compensation and who are all members of the First Baptist Church in Yakima, Washington.
Sun Tower is the name given to a 12-story concrete and steel building located in Yakima. It is owned by respondent. The building contains 153 units and was opened on September 3, 1968. The facility does not admit any person under the age of 62 years, except a married couple will be admitted if one of them is 62 or more years old.
The building contains a central dining facility and some central recreational facilities. The dining facility furnishes the evening meal for an additional charge, and during half of each year furnishes a noon meal. There are also other services available for an additional fee. •
The average age of the residents is 78.8 years. No person is admitted unless he can move about with no more assistance than a cane, and a person who ceases to meet that test is required to leave. About two-thirds of the residents can come and go at will, and enjoy relatively good health.
Any income from rents and other charges is devoted to payment of the various loans respondent has secured to build Sun Tower and start its operation, and to the payment of operating expenses. The only staff members are a supervisor, a bookkeeper, and a janitor.
Two questions are presented. First, is there statutory authority for the issuance of an injunction herein, and second, is the property exempt from taxation by statute?
The statutory authority for the injunction is found in RCW 84.68.010, which provides in part:
Injunctions and restraining orders shall not be issued or granted to restrain the collection of any tax or any part thereof, or the sale of any property for the nonpayment of any tax or part thereof, except, in the following cases:
'(1) Where the law under which the tax is imposed is void;
(2) Where the property upon which the tax is imposed is exempt from taxation; . . .
(Italics ours.) The respondent herein contends the property is exempt from taxation, and, therefore, respondent may seek an injunction.
We next reach the question of whether Sun Tower is exempt. We will first consider the claim of appellants that RCW 84.36.040 is unconstitutional. We find no merit in that contention.
RCW 84.36.040 reads in part:
The following property shall be exempt from taxation:
All free public libraries, orphanages, orphan asylums, institutions for the reformation of fallen women, homes for the aged and infirm, and hospitals for the care of the sick, when such institutions are supported in whole or in part by public donations or private charity, and all of the income and profits thereof are devoted, after paying the expenses thereof, to the purposes of such institutions; and the grounds, together with all real and personal property owned or used as a part of such institutions, whenever such libraries, orphanages, institutions, homes, and hospitals are built and used exclusively for the purposes herein enumerated.
In order to determine whether such libraries, orphanages, institutions, homes, and hospitals are exempt from taxes within the intent of this chapter, the director of revenue shall have access to their books and the superintendent or manager of the library, orphanage, institution, home, or hospital claiming exemption from taxation shall file, with the assessor on forms furnished by the director, a signed statement that the income and the receipts thereof, including donations to it, have been applied to the actual expenses of maintaining it, and to no other purpose.
As far as is relevant here, the exemption applies to homes for the aged and infirm if supported in whole or in part by donations of public or private funds and if the funds and property of such homes are used exclusively for the purpose of providing and maintaining a home for the aged and infirm. The argument, which is not supported by any authority, is that the provision violates the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, article 1, section 12. It is claimed there are other elderly persons not living in such "homes" and they receive no similar benefit.
The exemption from taxation is granted to the home and its property, not to the individual tenant or occupant of the home. Any advantage which the individual receives is purely incidental and indirect. Furthermore, there is a reasonable basis of classification. Sparkman & McLean Co. v. Govan Inv. Trust, 78 Wn.2d 584, 478 P.2d 232 (1970); State ex rel. Namer Inv. Corp. v. Williams, 73 Wn.2d 1, 435 P.2d 975 (1968).
Appellants also contend that Sun Tower is not exempt under RCW 84.36.040. That contention is divided into several parts (1) that Sun Tower is not a "home", (2) that the residents are not aged and infirm, (3) that the funds are not wholly devoted to maintenance and expenses and, (4) that the institution is not supported in whole or in part by public donations or private charity.
The primary rule, which has been stated many times in this state, is that an exemption in a taxing statute is to be construed strictly against the claim of exemption. We said in Pacific Northwest Conf. of the Free Meth. Church of N. America v. Barlow, 77 Wn.2d 487, 492, 463 P.2d 626 (1969), ". . . all presumptions are against an intention of the state to bind itself by the exemption of property from taxation, . . ."
Unless Sun Tower meets all of the requirements of the statute, it cannot be exempt under RCW 84.36.040.
It is therefore necessary to consider only one criterion in order to demonstrate that Sun Tower cannot qualify under RCW 84.36.040. The requirement that' "such institutions are supported in whole or in part by public donations or private charity" cannot be met. Words in a statute are to be given their ordinary or common meaning when that is not inconsistent with the obvious legislative intent. Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Tax Comm'n, 75 Wn.2d 758, 453 P.2d 870 (1969); State ex rel. Longview Fire Fighters Union v. Longview, 65 Wn.2d 568, 399 P.2d 1 (1965); Bixler v. Hille, 80 Wn.2d 668, 497 P.2d 594 (1972) and cases cited therein. The above rule has been applied to exemptions from taxation. Yakima Fruit Growers Ass'n v. Henneford, 182 Wash. 437, 47 P.2d 831, 100 A.L.R. 435 (1935).
What, then, does the word "supported" mean? "Support" is defined in Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1968), among other meanings, as "to pay the costs of . . . maintain . to furnish funds for maintaining". The word in ordinary use would imply the idea of day-to-day maintenance rather than first cost of construction or cost of furnishing the building.
The principal source of funds for the construction of Sim Tower was a loan of nearly two million dollars from the federal government at a very low rate of interest. Without-the low interest rate it would have been impossible to construct the project. There was a loan of $59,000 from the First Baptist Church, of which $32,000 was returned to the church from federal funds. The church also loaned $23,000 for working capital.
The First Baptist Church gave to Yakima First Baptist Homes, Inc. $8,300 for furnishing and equipping certain common areas. Donations totaling $6,422 in cash or furnishings were received from various contributors.
The source of funds for the maintenance of Sim Tower was covered by the trial court's finding of fact No. 13, which read:
The annual operating costs of plaintiff are derived from the following sources:
a. Rent paid by the residents.
b. Federal Rent Subsidies paid directly by the Federal Government to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has a separate contract with the Federal Government pursuant to which plaintiff is required to devote a certain number of its units to very low income aged persons and for which plaintiff receives a direct rent subsidy payment from the government. Twenty per cent of plaintiff's units presently are devoted to persons in this extremely restricted income bracket.
c. Miscellaneous donations, frequently of the free use of equipment without which many of the plaintiff's programs could not be carried out.
The findings of fact clearly show that the funds for operation of Sun Tower come almost entirely from rents and rent subsidies. The rent subsidy is denominated in the finding as being under a "contract". It is, therefore, not a "public donation" as that term is used in the statute.
The amounts received from contributions appear from the finding to be extremely small, and to a substantial extent to consist of the loan of items of equipment. Such minimal contributions do not bring respondent within the provision for being supported "in part by public donations or private charity". While it is true the language of the statute might be otherwise construed, such a construction would be absurd..
To hold an exemption from taxation could result from any contribution, no matter - how small, would open the door to fraud upon the public. Furthermore, such a construction would be contrary to the spirit of the law, and to the rules for the construction of tax exemption statutes as herein stated.
Absurd consequences are to be avoided in the construction of a statute. State ex rel. Thorp v. Devin, 26 Wn.2d 333, 173 P.2d 994 (1946); In re Horse Heaven Irr. Dist., 11 Wn.2d 218, 118 P.2d 972 (1941); Lenci v. Seattle, 63 Wn.2d 664, 338 P.2d 926 (1964).
Findings of fact supported by ample evidence will not be disturbed nor reviewed on appeal. Sylvester v. Imhoff, 81 Wn.2d 637, 639, 503 P.2d 734 (1972).
The other question is whether the property is exempt from taxation under RCW 84.36.030, which reads in part:
The following property shall be exempt from taxation: Property owned by nonsectarian organizations or associations, organized and conducted primarily and chiefly for religious purposes and not for profit, which shall be used, or to the extent solely used, for the religious purposes of such associations, or for the educational, benevolent, protective, or social departments growing out of, or related to, the religious work of such associations;
Under this section the matters in dispute are if the organization is nonsectarian and if the property is devoted to a religious purpose.
It seems fairly clear in this case even if the organization, Yakima First Baptist Homes, Inc., is sectarian, the use to which Sun Tower is put is nonsectarian. ¡Under Washington law, as announced in numerous cases, it is the use to which the property is put that determines its exempt character. Pacific Northwest Conf. of the Free Meth. Church of N. America v. Barlow, supra; Norwegian Lutheran Church of America v. Wooster, 176 Wash. 581, 30 P.2d 381 (1934); Wesley Foundation v. King County, 185 Wash. 12, 52 P.2d 1247 (1935).
It is contended by respondent that the care of the aged is a religious purpose. Although the practice of charity, of kindness to other.persons and in particular to the aged, and the .practice of all of the virtues are acts encouraged by religious organizations generally, it cannot be said this is a religious purpose within the commonly accepted definitions of the word "religious". Without a religious purpose, respondent is not entitled to an exemption under RCW 84.36.030.
The judgment is reversed.
Hale, C.J., Rosellini, Hamilton, and Stafford, JJ., concur.