Court Opinion

ID: 9552383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:09:49.213555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:16.060329
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring in result).
There are certainly very few, if any, properties that are or could be, used exclusively for either religious or charitable purposes if the adverb “exclusively” be taken in the absolute sense of solely and without any other purpose or motive. It is necessary to give the total language a sensible and practical interpretation and application consistent with the more fundamental governmental purpose of promoting the general welfare of the citizenry, including providing for their educational, cultural and recreational needs. To spare further exposition thereon, see Elks v. Tax Commission, footnote 1 of the main opinion, and particularly my own views as set forth in the concurring opinion.
The main opinion aptly observes that each case should be analyzed and decided on its own facts. Assuming the correctness of defendant’s contention that the general purpose of the Moose Lodge exists and is operated mainly for recreational and social purposes; and that it thus assumes a public responsibility of providing for social and recreational needs of those who desire to avail themselves of it, there are other aspects of private operation and benefit, including the operation of the restaurant, which appears to be an outright commercial enterprise, which is neither segregated for tax purposes nor taxed as such. Notwithstanding my views as referred to above, upon the basis of the facts as agreed upon and presented here, I am persuaded to agree with the result of the decision.
*1026DEE, District Judge (concurring in result).
I concur in the opinion of the Chief Justice and have been endeavoring to determine if it is possible to set up definite guidelines for the use of County Attorneys to determine what constitutes “property used exclusively for religious worship or charitable purposes.” Unfortunately, I have not been able to arrive at a workable set of ground rules and this case leaves that issue still not clearly defined. Specifically, I had hoped to encompass in the definition of “charitable purpose” donations to organizations that are in the arts, music, dance, etc. by researching what has been done in other jurisdictions in this regard and have not succeeded in precisely fixing this other than was the ease in Benevolent Protective Order of Elks No. 85 v. State Tax Commission of State of Utah, 536 P.2d 1214 (1975) wherein the court said:
. that it would not attempt to establish a fixed definition ‘lest by words of exclusion we might unintentionally seem to impose a legal restraint upon the Cardinal Grace which by its very nature thrives in protection to the freedom of its proper exercise.’
This then leaves Utah with no specific definition as to what is charity and therefore the cases must be decided case by case. Thus we have a situation where 10% of an organization’s income plus the use of a certain portion of the building is sufficient to gain an exemption from taxation, but 2% of the income and less use of the building is not. Perhaps a case will come to this court which raises this point directly at which time the court may find a definition for “charitable purposes” which should include funds as well as voluntary man hours and voluntary use of the facilities in a “public purpose” so that this phrase can be more precisely defined.