Opinion ID: 2004530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factor Three

Text: For the third factorwhether the recipients of the charity are required to pay for the assistance received in whole or in part, N. Star Research Inst., 306 Minn. at 6, 236 N.W.2d at 757we have identified several alternative measures, without discussing which must be satisfied in a given case. In North Star, we said that the exemption was denied to [two] homes for the aged, also a traditionally favored form of charitable activity, because the charges made to residents by the nonprofit corporations involved gave a preferred status to wealthy persons. Id. at 9, 236 N.W.2d at 758-59 (referring to Madonna Towers v. Comm'r of Taxation, 283 Minn. 111, 167 N.W.2d 712 (1969) (independent living services), and State v. United Church Homes, Inc., 292 Minn. 323, 195 N.W.2d 411 (1972) (same)). Croixdale would satisfy this alternative measure because 90% of its residents are low income persons, 28% of whom are on government assistance, either under the elderly waiver program or the alternative care program. In other cases, we have said that the organization must prove that residents receive services at a rate `considerably less than market value or cost.' Cmty. Mem'l Home at Osakis v. County of Douglas, 573 N.W.2d 83, 87 (Minn.1997) (an assisted living facility) (quoting Rio Vista Non-Profit Hous. Corp. v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 187, 192 (Minn.1979)). Although that test is stated in the alternativemarket value or costin this case the tax court focused only on market value. If, as I conclude, below cost is an alternative test, the tax court erred by failing to consider it. [5]