Opinion ID: 2603509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evelyn Street

Text: The former church building and the land upon which it is situated were used for educational activities, seminars and weekly group discussions, called rap sessions. The public, as well as ranch retreatants, were invited to these weekly meetings, which were led by members of the Masters family. Roy Masters testified that the church building was used by the Foundation to promote and to evangelize and to implement our teachings. The building fulfills many of the functions of the churches of more traditional religions. It was in this building that Foundation members congregated on a weekly basis to discuss and share their beliefs, and where interested outsiders could learn about and participate in church teachings. The Tax Court properly exempted this building. That portion of the church building used for selling books and tapes is not exempt. ORS 307.140 denies an exemption for any part of a building used as a store or shop. The Foundation argues on cross-appeal that its bookstore should be exempt because it advances the aims of the religion, it does not make a profit, and it does not compete with nonexempt businesses. These distinctions are not pertinent under this statute. The Foundation would have us disregard the language of the statute in order to allow an exemption. This we decline to do. The caretakers' residence is located next door to the church building. It is used as a residence for a husband and wife who are available day and night to receive phone calls, counsel people by telephone, protect the church from vandalism and sell books and tapes. The Foundation asserts that this use of the property is reasonably necessary for the adjacent church building activities. In Mult. School of Bible v. Mult. County, 218 Or. 19, 343 P.2d 893 (1959), we held the on-campus residences of the building superintendent and the cafeteria supervisor reasonably necessary to the operation of a religious college and, therefore, exempt. These employees performed essential functions for the school which necessitated their residence on the property. 218 Or. at 37, 343 P.2d 893. In this case, although the caretakers' presence on the property is no doubt beneficial to the Foundation, it is not essential to the organization that they reside there and not elsewhere. The caretakers are not needed at that location to counsel people by telephone or to open the church when needed. Selling merchandise is not usually a 24-hour-a-day activity. We hold that the caretakers' residence is not eligible for an exemption from ad valorem taxation.