Opinion ID: 2603509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: OTR at 333.

Text: The Department below disallowed the ranch exemption because of this conflict. It found that the Foundation had already declared the primary use of most of its ranch acreage and that one predominant use must necessarily exclude another. We agree with the Multnomah County decision that a stated predominant purpose of growing trees for a timber tax exemption is incompatible with actual and exclusive use of the property for charitable work. We find nothing in the Foundation's brief or evidence to reconcile this conflict in the use of the property. Unlike the Vedanta Society, the Foundation has not repudiated its declared intent to use the specially assessed property predominantly for timber production. The exemption is denied for this land. Roy Masters described the ranch as: A park-like sanctuary for spiritual and work therapy; a retreat for those who need to withdraw temporarily from the horrors of stress and family strife while they study, receive instruction, learn how to meditate and receive the benefits of both spiritual and work therapy. Living quarters provided for retreats [sic] and staff; evangelical materials available for use and sale; farms and outbuildings, fields and forest, are all used for the religious atmosphere necessary to dispel stress and to bring the retreats [sic] closer to God. There is evidence that the portion of the ranch not specially assessed for forest uses, 45.20 acres, is used in some capacity in the Foundation's religious activities, which include work therapy, counseling, individual spiritual examination and meditation. The Department does not dispute that the Foundation's counseling work and work therapy are part of its religion. There is evidence that meditation and individual private spiritual examination in a rural environment are religious activities of the Foundation as well. Sufficient undisputed evidence exists in the record from which we can find that this portion of the ranch is devoted to religious activities. This portion of the ranch qualifies for exemption. [8] In its brief on cross-appeal, the Foundation claims that no merchandise was sold at the ranch. Therefore, it argues, that portion of the Tax Court's ruling exempting all of the ranch save that portion of the living quarters devoted to selling evangelical materials, Foundation of Human Understanding v. Dept. of Rev., supra, 9 OTR at 436, is incorrect. However, there is evidence from Roy Masters that [e]vangelical materials are sold and distributed at the ranch. Any portion of the property used for the sale of merchandise would not be exempt. In summary, we hold that the Evelyn Street property, except that portion used as a bookstore and a caretaker's residence, is exempt from taxation, and that portion of the ranch not specially assessed for forest uses is also exempt, except for that part used for the sale of merchandise. The South River Road property does not qualify for an exemption. The judgment of the Tax Court is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the Tax Court.