Opinion ID: 2691412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: {¶ 47} For the foregoing reasons, the BTA acted reasonably and lawfully when it upheld the Tax Commissioner’s denial of DCI’s claim for a charitable-use exemption. We therefore affirm the decision of the BTA. Decision affirmed. BROWN, C.J., and O’CONNOR and CUPP, JJ., concur. PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, and O’DONNELL, JJ., dissent. 16 January Term, 2010 __________________ O’DONNELL, J., dissenting. {¶ 48} While I concur with the majority’s conclusion that no minimum percentage of unreimbursed care is required in order to qualify for a charitableuse exemption, I disagree with the majority’s determination that Dialysis Clinic, Inc. (“DCI”) is not entitled to the exemption on the ground that it does not provide service in a nondiscriminatory manner because it reserves the right to refuse treatment to indigent patients in its effort to comply with Medicare regulations. The reservation of the right to refuse treatment is not proof that DCI denies services to indigents. To the contrary, the evidence shows that DCI provides services to all patients, irrespective of their ability to pay. Because providing service to indigent patients is a charitable act, in my view, DCI qualifies as a charitable institution and is tax exempt. Moreover, because DCI provides services at the West Chester clinic, the clinic is used exclusively for charitable purposes, and the property is exempt from tax. Accordingly, I assert that the determination by the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA”) denying DCI a charitableuse tax exemption was unreasonable and unlawful.