Opinion ID: 2603509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Tall Timber Ranch

Text: The ranch consists of 370.65 acres with improvements. The Foundation claims that the entire parcel is reasonably necessary to accomplish its religious purposes. We have used a test of reasonable necessity when discussing ministers' or supervisors' residences connected with churches or schools, German Apost. Christ. Church v. Dept. of Rev., supra ; Multnomah School of Bible v. Mult. County, supra . The test involves the relationship of one piece of property to another; when the property for which an exemption is sought is connected with and essential for the use of exempt property, we have extended the exemption from taxation. We have not considered, and decline to do so now, whether property may be exempt because it is reasonably necessary to carry out the overall goals of an exempt organization. The Foundation makes no claim that the ranch is required for the successful function of some other exempt property. We find no exemption on this ground. The bulk of the ranch, 327.45 acres, is specially assessed for forest land. In order to be eligible for this special assessment, the land must be held or used for the predominant purpose of growing and harvesting trees of a marketable species. ORS 321.257(2). When applying for this special assessment the taxpayer must state in its application for assessment that the land is being held or used for the predominant purpose of growing and harvesting trees of marketable species. ORS 321.358(2)(c). Though the Tax Court below was not concerned that the Foundation was claiming two different predominant uses for 327.45 acres of the ranch, in Multnomah County v. Dept. of Rev., 6 OTR 325 (1976), the same issue was not so easily overlooked. [7] There, the Vedanta Society had applied for a special assessment for forest land in an apparent attempt to try any method to avoid full taxation. At the hearing before the Tax Court, however, the society repudiated its intent to grow trees for timber. Furthermore, the evidence indicated that harvesting the trees would violate the society's religious principles. The Tax Court stated: The county is correct in saying that the statements made by the society in applying for the Small Tract Optional Tax directly contradicts its present position. The society never intended to hold the land for the `predominant purpose of growing and harvesting trees.' That purpose is incompatible with `actually and exclusively occupying the property' for charitable or benevolent work.