Opinion ID: 2258215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: 80b appeal

Text: [¶ 10] CCCS contends that the Superior Court erred by denying its Rule 80B appeal because the Board improperly considered prejudicial and incompetent evidence, based its denial of the abatement request on the source of CCCS's funds, and failed to make required factual findings. [3] We review directly the decision of the Board when the Superior Court acts in an appellate capacity. See Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16, ¶ 4, 769 A.2d 834, 836.
[¶ 11] The rules of evidence do not generally apply to administrative proceedings unless otherwise provided by statute. 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(1) (2002). Hearsay testimony is admissible if it is `the kind of evidence upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs.' Aviation Oil Co. v. Dept. of Envtl. Prot., 584 A.2d 611, 614 (Me.1990) (quoting 5 M.R.S.A. § 9057(2)). A bare claim that an administrative agency has considered questionable evidence is not sufficient to disturb the agency's action. The claimant must show that the agency relied on incompetent evidence and that the claimant was prejudiced thereby. Maddocks v. Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2001 ME 60, ¶ 12, 768 A.2d 1023, 1026. The record in this case does not disclose such prejudicial error.
[¶ 12] CCCS also contends that the Board erred by depriving it of a tax exemption because CCCS receives much of its revenue from the fair share contributions of creditors. An organization may not be deprived of the right of exemption by reason of the source from which its funds are derived. 36 M.R.S.A. § 652(1)(A). Contrary to CCCS's contention, however, the Board made clear that it denied CCCS's application not because of the source of its funds, but because its services significantly benefit creditors and because those benefits are not merely incidental to some benevolent and charitable purpose. Although the Board may not base a denial of an exemption on the source of an organization's funds, it may consider, as it properly did here, the ultimate beneficiaries of the organization's services. See 36 M.R.S.A. § 652(1)(C)(1) (Any corporation claiming exemption under paragraph A must be organized and conducted exclusively for benevolent and charitable purposes.) (emphasis added).
[¶ 13] The Board made, among others, the following findings of fact: 19. CCCS provides services that are beneficial to creditors. 20. The benefit provided to creditors is not merely incidental to any charitable purposes for which CCCS may be organized and conducted. CCCS contends that these findings are insufficient under Christian Fellowship & Renewal Ctr. v. Town of Limington, 2001 ME 16, 769 A.2d 834, because they are conclusory. In Christian Fellowship, we vacated the judgment of the Superior Court that affirmed the decision of the York County Commissioners denying a tax abatement because the Commissioners failed to make findings sufficient to appraise the court or the parties of the basis for their conclusion. Id. ¶ 10, 769 A.2d at 839-40. In that case, the Commissioners failed to make findings of fact regarding whether the organization was a benevolent and charitable institution and whether the organization used or occupied the property exclusively for charitable and benevolent purposes. Id. ¶ 9. The Board's findings in this case, however, are sufficient to show the basis for its decision and for effective judicial review.