Court Opinion

ID: 9517028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:01:29.825901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:04.051659
License: Public Domain

OPINION
MEYER, Justice.
Relator Croixdale, Inc. (Croixdale) challenged respondent County of Washington’s decision to remove Croixdale’s real property tax exemption beginning with taxes assessed in 2003 and payable in 2004. At ■trial, the tax court concluded that Croix-dale was not an institution of purely public charity under Minn.Stat. §-272.02 (2002) and that Croixdale was not exempt from real property taxation. On appeal, Croix-dale challenged the tax court’s application and analysis of the six-factor test for determining whether it qualified as an institution of purely public charity established in North Star Research Institute v. County of Hennepin, 306 Minn. 1, 236 N.W.2d 754 (1975), arguing that the tax court: (1) wrongly disregarded studies presented by Croixdale’s experts which established that Croixdale charged less than market rent; (2) erred when analyzing Croixdale’s financial statements to determine that Croix-dale had made a profit; and (3) improperly concluded that Croixdale did not lessen the burden on government.. We affirm the decision of the tax court because Croixdale failed to meet its burden of proof under North Star.
Croixdale is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit Minnesota corporation that was founded to assist seniors in the Bayport and St. Croix Valley area who are no longer able to live independently but not yet in need of 24-hour medical care. Croixdale began offering assisted living services in 1961 and independent living apartments in 1981.'
By the late 1990s, Croixdale’s assisted living building was nearly 40 years old, lacked the size and amenities, common to newer assisted living facilities, and was *486experiencing declining occupancy. Croix-dale consistently operated at a loss and was dependent upon donations from its founder, Katherine Andersen, or her foundation, the Katherine B. Andersen Fund (the Andersen Fund), to cover any operating losses. In 2000, however, the Andersen Fund stopped funding Croixdale’s operating losses.
Without the Andersen Fund support for its operating losses, Croixdale was forced to re-examine its future viability. After studying its options, Croixdale’s board of directors decided to demolish Croixdale’s existing buildings and rebuild both the assisted living and independent living units.
Rebuilding Croixdale’s assisted living and independent living facilities cost approximately $18 million. This project was financed through a capital campaign. By minimizing debt, the board hoped to offer lower rents, keeping Croixdale affordable. Croixdale raised approximately $10.5 million in pledges from private donations. The remaining funds were financed through tax-exempt bonds provided by the City of Bayport. Capital campaign donations were not specifically earmarked for rebuilding either the assisted living center or the independent living apartments.
Once rebuilt, rent for the assisted living facility was increased to a break-even price. All assisted living residents pay for their housing plus base level care. Residents may purchase points of care, which equate to services, if their needs are not met at the base level. The costs of these “points” are added to the resident’s monthly rent. Residents pay only for services received and do not pay for services someone else receives.
With three exceptions, all assisted living residents pay Croixdale’s published rates. The three exceptions are: (1) residents of Croixdale’s old building who were grandfathered into the new building at the old building’s rates; (2) residents on government assistance; and (3) residents receiving Mission Benevolence funds.
In late 1999 or early 2000, Croixdale used its own assets to establish the Mission Benevolence Fund for residents with financial need. Croixdale does not actively seek donations to the Mission Benevolence Fund. Each year the fund pays out 5% of its $1.6 million of assets, or approximately $80,000, to assist residents of both the assisted living and independent living facilities.
Only current Croixdale residents may receive Mission Benevolence funds.1 The Mission Benevolence Fund is not marketed to the public. Residents must apply for Mission Benevolence funds and provide Croixdale with detailed financial information. Before receiving funding, residents have to spend down their assets and exhaust available government assistance funds. As of November 30, 2004, eight of the assisted living center’s 53 residents were receiving Mission Benevolence funds for a total of $35,568.72 in aid for the year.
Until 2003, the entire Croixdale facility, assisted living and independent living services combined, was exempt from real property tax under Minn.Stat. § 272.02 as an institution of purely public charity. In 2003, based on information, provided by Croixdale, the county removed Croixdale’s property tax exemption. In response, Croixdale conceded that the independent living portion of the facility was subject to real property tax but appealed the county’s removal of the property tax exemption *487from the assisted living portion of its facility to the tax court.
The tax court applied the six-factor test established in North Star to determine:
(1) whether the stated purpose of the undertaking is to be helpful to others without immediate expectation of material reward;
(2) whether the entity involved is supported by donations and gifts in whole or in part;
(3) whether the recipients of the “charity” are required to pay for the assistance received in whole or in part;
(4) whether the income received from gifts and donations and charges to users produces a profit to the charitable institution;
(5) whether the beneficiaries of the “charity” are restricted or unrestricted and, if restricted, whether the class of persons to whom the charity is made available is one having a reasonable relationship to the charitable objectives;
(6) whether dividends, in form or substance, or assets upon dissolution are available to private interests.
Croixdale, Inc. v. County of Washington, Nos. CX-05-3068, C5-05-3043, C3-04-1720, 2005 WL 3542887 *1, *5 (Minn. T.C. Dec. 22, 2005) (citing N. Star Research Inst., 306 Minn, at 6, 236 N.W.2d at 757). Based on the evidence presented, the tax court concluded that Croixdale had not met its burden of establishing North Star factors three, four, and five and therefore Croixdale was not an institution of purely public charity under the statute.
This court reviews a tax court’s decision to determine whether the tax court had jurisdiction, whether or not the order is justified by evidence or in conformity with law, or whether the tax court committed an error of law. MinmStat. § 271.10 (2004). Absent a question of law, we will uphold the tax court’s decision where sufficient evidence exists for the tax court to reasonably reach the conclusion that it did. Care Inst., Inc. — Maplewood v. County of Ramsey, 576 N.W.2d 734, 738 (Minn.1998); Am. Ass’n of Cereal Chemists v. County of Dakota, 454 N.W.2d 912, 914 (Minn.1990).
The Minnesota Constitution provides that “[tjaxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects and shall be levied and collected for public purposes, but ⅜ ⅝ * institutions of purely public charity * * * shall be exempt from taxation except as provided in this section.” Mihn. Const, art. X, § 1. By statute, all “[[Institutions of purely public charity” are exempt from real property tax. Minn. Stat. § 272.02, subd. 7.2 All property is presumed taxable, however, and the taxpayer bears the burden of proving entitlement to an exemption. Am. Ass’n of Cereal Chemists, 454 N.W.2d at 914.
When determining whether an organization qualifies for a property tax exemption under the statute, this court defines charity as
a gift, to be applied consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons “by bringing their hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting or maintaining public buildings or works, or *488otherwise lessening the burdens of government.”
Junior Achievement of Greater Minneapolis, Inc. v. State, 271 Minn. 385, 390, 135 N.W.2d 881, 885 (1965) (citation omitted). A worthwhile objective alone does not justify classification as an institution of purely public charity. SHARE v. Comm’r of Revenue, 363 N.W.2d 47, 50 (Minn.1985). In North Star, this court established a six-factor test to help determine whether an organization is an institution of purely public charity for the purposes of real property tax exemption. 306 Minn, at 6, 236 N.W.2d at 757. Not every North Star factor needs to be met to determine that an organization is a purely public charity. Mayo Found v. Comm’r of Revenue, 306 Minn. 25, 36, 236 N.W.2d 767, 773 (1975). Therefore, when applying the North Star factors, we are mindful that the “purpose of the exemption is to foster and facilitate delivery of charitable services.” Skyline Pres. Found. v. County of Polk, 621 N.W.2d 727, 732 (Minn.2001). The tax court must decide each case on its own facts. Mayo Found., 306 Minn, at 36, 236 N.W.2d at 773.
The tax court applied the North Star analysis and found that Croixdale established that it met factors one, two, and six but did not meet its burden of proof in establishing factors three, four, and five.3
Before reaching' the factors that the tax court applied, we first emphasize that Croixdale bears the burden of proof in establishing that it is an institution of purely public charity. At trial, Croixdale presented financial data that included both its assisted' living facility, which it claimed was a institution of purely public charity, and its independent living facility, which Croixdale acknowledged was not an institution of purely public charity. Croixdale asked the tax court to assume that its debt servicing strategy, combined operating expenses, and rental fee structure ultimately established that the independent living units subsidized the assisted living facilities. But, based upon the record presented, we cannot positively conclude that Croixdale adequately established that its resources are truly allocated in such a manner. We note that we do not believe that the failure of Croixdale to meet its burden of proof bars Croixdale from challenging its tax-exempt status in future tax years. But its failure to meet its burden of proof does prevent Croixdale from obtaining property tax exemptions in 2003, 2004, and 2005.
Factor three examines “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. To prove this, 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) (quoting Rio Vista Non-Profit Hous. Corp. v. County of Ramsey, 277 N.W.2d 187, 192 (Minn.1979)). We have imposed the “considerably less than market value or cost” test as a means of proving that rents were established for the stated charitable purpose rather than for purely business reasons. See Care Inst., Inc. — Roseville v. County of Ramsey, 612 N.W.2d 443, 449 (Minn.2000). Because operating at a loss may be caused by any number of factors, operating at a loss is not sufficient to establish that a facility is charging less than market *489value. Cmty. Mem’l Home at Osakis, 573 N.W.2d at 87. Instead, we look to see if residents are receiving services at free or reduced costs. Id.;- see also Care Inst, Inc. — Maplewood, 576 N.W.2d at 739.
Although the tést is stated in the alternative — market value or cost — in this case the tax court focused only on market value. In this situation, where testimony indicated that the variety of services and amenities provided by area assisted living centers made it difficult to compare the market value of facilities,- the appropriate inquiry should have been whether Croix-dale’s residents paid less than cost for the services, amenities, and assistance provided to them. We find the tax court’s failure to examine whether the services were provided for less than cost problematic, particularly here, where an organization has an obsolete facility and is required to build a new one in order to provide adequate services. The construction costs of a new facility, incurred at current capital costs, may be well in excess of competing facilities that were built years earlier. If the facility is to recover its capital costs over time, which it must do to stay in operation, it may not be able to charge below “market” rates when compared to organizations with older, fully depreciated facilities. Yet, its rates might be well below cost. Croixdale argues that, as a result of the capital campaign, it is able to set its rates considerably below those required to recover its capital costs. The tax court erred by failing to consider whether Croix-dale’s rates were below cost.
Croixdale’s evidence was that the $8,600,000 received in capital contributions, if allocated equally to the 109 assisted living and independent living units, produced a savings of $11,000 per unit in construction costs and a savings in excess of $650 per month per room in debt service. If this savings was fairly allocated to each assisted living room, and if this savings was passed on to the residents of those rooms (two facts we cannot determine from this record), Croixdale would have satisfied factor three by showing that donations enabled Croixdale to charge resident fees below cost.
The tax court’s failure to consider whether Croixdale’s services were below “cost” penalizes Croixdale for becoming more professional and fiscally responsible. If, to be exempt, a charity must be fiscally irresponsible, not use best management practices, and depend on operating donations to constantly bridge the shortfall in its cash needs, -then most exempt charities will not survive because they .cannot realistically depend on perpetual operating contributions. The whole purpose of the charitable exemption, to encourage and support the societal contributions of true charities, .would, be defeated by requiring that they be casually managed. More specifically, a charity that' improves its- infrastructure and establishes break-even budgets will be one that can stabilize and maximize the care that it can provide to the residents in need. These enhancements should be seen as being supportive of, not contradictory to, the charitable mission.
Despite the tax court’s failure to examine whether Croixdale’s services were considerably below cost, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the tax court’s conclusion that factor three was not met. Testimony established that Croixdale’s rents were set to allow Croixdale to break even, that Croixdale’s points of care system was designed to ensure that residents paid for the services they received, and that the price for the points of care was based on the cost of staff for the amount of time that the services required: While this evidence suggests that Croixdale’s services were provided at a close to cost *490basis, these factors, combined with our inability to ascertain, from Croixdale’s financial statements what expenses and savings can be attributed to the assisted living units, suggest that Croixdale did not sufficiently meet its burden of proof in establishing that its services were offered considerably below cost.
Factor four examines “whether the income received from gifts and donations and charges to users produces a profit to the charitable institution.” N. Star Research Inst., 306 Minn, at 6, 236 N.W.2d at 757. Recognizing that all six of the North Star factors need not be met in order to establish an organization as a purely public charity, modest increases in net worth, when consistent with goals of the organization, do not destroy an organization’s charitable nature. Mayo Found., 306 Minn. at 36-37, 236 N.W.2d at 773-74; see Am. Ass’n of Cereal Chemists, 454 N.W.2d at 915 (concluding-that factor four was met because the profits were used to further the organization’s future objectives instead of for private gain); SHARE, 363 N.W.2d at 51 n. 3 (noting that a 2-year increase in net worth does not eliminate nonprofit status).
Croixdale argues that the tax court confused positive cash flow with profit when examining its financial statements and wrongly attributed donations to profit. Factor four examines whether the income received as a whole, including donations, produces a profit for the institution. N. Star Research Inst., 306 Minn, at 6, 236 N.W.2d at 757. Factor four is not intended to discourage charitable institutions from engaging in financial planning with an eye toward long-term viability. However, long-term financial planning, which could result in a modest increase in net worth, is different from producing a profit. In this case, when accounting for donations, gifts, and charges to residents, with the exception of year one, Croixdale’s financial documents showed an anticipated cash flow of $125,000 to $325,000 over five years. Based on this evidence, the tax court could reasonably conclude that Croixdale produced a profit.
Factor five examines “whether the beneficiaries of the ‘charity’ are restricted or unrestricted and, if restricted, whether the class of persons to whom the charity is made available is one having a reasonable relationship to the charitable objectives.” N. Star Research Inst., 306 Minn, at 6, 236 N.W.2d at 757. As a subpart of factor five, the charity must lessen the burden on government. Cmty. Mem’l Home at Osakis, 573 N.W.2d at 87; Worthington Dormitory, Inc. v. Comm’r of Revenue, 292 N.W.2d 276, 280 (Minn.1980). Both current and future activities of the organization help determine whether an organization lessens the burden on government. White Earth Land Recovery Project v. County of Becker, 544 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Minn.1996); see also Care Inst, Inc.— Roseville, 612 N.W.2d at 449 (examining whether the long-term philosophy of the charity involves providing services to the economically disadvantaged).
In this case, Croixdale disputes the tax court’s conclusion that it does not lessen the burden on government. Croixdale claims that by providing its residents with financial assistance through its Mission Benevolence Fund and by reducing its residents’ rent through its charitable campaign, it lessens the burden on government.
We are not persuaded by this argument. The Mission Benevolence Fund is available only to existing Croixdale residents, not new residents. And even then, Mission Benevolence funds are only available to residents after they have spent down their existing financial resources and *491the possibility of government assistance has been exhausted. Additionally, Croix-dale has offered no evidence indicating how reducing its overall rents by $650 lessens the burden on government. Based upon these facts, we conclude that Croix-dale did not meet its burden of showing that it lessened the burden on government and that sufficient evidence exists to support the tax court’s conclusion that Croix-dale failed to meet factor five.
In summary, we conclude that sufficient evidence supports the tax court’s conclusion that Croixdale is not qualified for real property tax exemption as an institution of purely public charity. In doing so, we again note an organization need not prove all six North Star factors to establish that it is an institution of purely public charity under Minn.Stat. § 272.02. Here, the tax court weighed these factors in relation to the particular facts and circumstances of the case, and it reasonably reached the conclusion that Croixdale did riot qualify for real property tax exemption.
■Affirmed.

. For purposes of this opinion, Mission Benevolence funds refer to private funds distributed by Croixdale to individuals who have applied for and formally receive Mission Benevolence funding.

. Minnesota Statutes § 272.02, subd. 1(7) (2002), contains two exceptions to property tax exemption for institutions of purely public charity, which are not relevant to these proceedings because we have determined that Croixdale was not an institution of purely public charity for the years in question. Minnesota Statutes § 272.02, subd. 1(7), was amended in 2005, eliminating those exceptions.

. Because only factors three, four, and five are at issue in this case, we limit our discussion to these factors.