Property-tax Exemption for Charities


Book Description

Contributors in municipal studies, law, and philanthropic studies discuss property-tax exemption for charities and how public perception on property-owning charities differs from reality. They survey the legal and political landscape of property-tax exemption for nonprofit organizations, examine the development of the current structure of nonprofit property-tax exemption and its legal rationales, and assess mechanisms adopted by local municipalities to offset some of the revenue lost because of exempt properties. Material originated at the December 1997 26th Annual Conference of the Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR.




The Charitable Tax Exemption


Book Description

The tradition of tax-exempt status for nonprofit "charitable" organizations is well established, and few would argue with the principle. But the tax-exempt sector of the economy is vast and rapidly growing, resulting in the loss of billions of dollars of tax revenue. At the same time, we have no consensus on what purpose the charitable tax exemption serves, let alone agreement on what constitutes a charity. In this important addition to the theory of tax law, Colombo and Hall develop an original "donative" theory that links the charitable tax exemption to the ability of an organization to derive donative support from the community. Their theory not only makes intuitive sense but also receives support from economic, political, and moral theory. Its implications would rationalize the charitable tax exemption, comport with legal precedent, and simplify the administration of the law. The Charitable Tax Exemption is a major contribution to the theory of tax law and should be essential reading for a wide range of lawyers dealing with taxes. It will also be enlightening for anyone involved in the operation of a nonprofit organization







Payments in Lieu of Taxes


Book Description

Charitable nonprofit organizations, including private universities, nonprofit hospitals, museums, soup kitchens, churches, and retirement homes, are exempt from property taxation in all 50 states. At the same time, these nonprofits impose a cost on municipalities by consuming public services, such as police protection and roads. Payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) are payments made voluntarily by these nonprofits as a substitute for property taxes. In recent years, municipal revenue pressures have led to heightened interest in PILOTs, and over the last decade they have been used in at least 117 municipalities in at least 18 states. Large cities collecting PILOTs include Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh. Boston has one of the longest standing and the most revenue productive PILOT program in the United States. PILOTs are a tool to address two problems with the property tax exemption provided to nonprofits. First, the exemption is poorly targeted, since it mainly benefits nonprofits with the most valuable property holdings, rather than those providing the greatest public benefit. Second, a geographic mismatch often exists between the costs and benefits of the property tax exemption, since the cost of the exemption in terms of forgone tax revenue is borne by the municipality in which a nonprofit is located, but the public benefits provided by the nonprofit often extend to the rest of the state or even the whole nation. PILOTs can provide crucial revenue for certain municipalities, and are one way to make nonprofits pay for the public services they consume. However, PILOTs are often haphazard, secretive, and calculated in an ad hoc manner that results in widely varying payments among similar nonprofits. In addition, a municipality's attempt to collect PILOTs can prompt a battle with nonprofits and lead to years of contentious, costly, and unproductive litigation. For this policy focus report, authors Daphne A. Kenyon and Adam H. Langley have researched the continuing policy debate over property tax exemptions among municipalities and nonprofit organizations, and they offer the following recommendations. PILOTs are one revenue option for municipalities. They are most appropriate for municipalities that are highly reliant on the property tax and have a significant share of total property owned by nonprofits. For example, a Minnesota study found that while PILOTs could increase property tax revenue by more than ten percent in six municipalities, there was negligible revenue potential from PILOTs for the vast majority of Minnesota cities and towns. Similarly, PILOTs are not appropriate for all types of nonprofits. PILOTs are most suitable for nonprofits that own large amounts of tax-exempt property and provide modest benefits to local residents relative to their tax savings. Municipalities should work collaboratively with nonprofits when seeking PILOTs. The best PILOT initiatives arise out of a partnership between the municipality and local nonprofit organizations, because both sectors serve the general public and have an interest in an economically and fiscally healthy community. In some cities, case-by-case negotiation with one or several nonprofits is best, as is the case between Yale University and New Haven. In cities with a large number of nonprofits, such as Boston, creating a systematic PILOT program can promote horizontal equity among tax-exempt nonprofits and raise more revenue than negotiating individual agreements.




All Charities are Property-Tax Exempt, But Some are More Exempt Than Others


Book Description

Attention from the media notwithstanding, the nonprofit sector continues to achieve remarkable success in state supreme courts and statehouses in defending property-tax exemptions. But budget pressures remain. While the intermediate use of “payments in lieu of taxes” has not yet become a systematic compromise solution, PILOTs are attracting growing interest from local taxing jurisdictions. This Article highlights three issues - who decides the parameters of exemption, legislatures or courts; what are the specific factors and vulnerable subsectors; and how exemption is granted or withheld in practice - and concludes with several PILOT case studies. The Appendix sets forth a fifty-one-jurisdiction review of state constitutions, statutes, and high-court decisions, and finds that the regimes generally are more similar than not.







The 21st Century Fight Over Who Sets the Terms of the Charity Property Tax Exemption


Book Description

Turning from the substantive issue of defining charity, this article considers the “who” question by examining the roles of the courts, legislatures, municipalities, and charities in determining exemption and payments in lieu of taxes. The three covered topics - constitutional power, statutory interpretation, and the “intermediate sanctions” of user fees and PILOTs - braid together to form the procedural framework for the financial relationship between nonprofit property owners and the taxing jurisdictions that host them. Change the parameters of one, and you change the others. Staying off the rolls or minimizing the tax bite often results from compromise - whether at the state constitutional level; in state statutes; as a matter of assessment; or through negotiation with local governmental bodies. But such an application of a multi-level framework for mischief leads to legal incoherence. The article begins with the knockdown, drag-out separation-of-powers fight that has arisen in Illinois and Pennsylvania: Which branch, the judicial or legislative, defines “charities” granted exemption by the state constitution?Next up is the more mundane world of statutory interpretation, where even here courts second-guess the legislature. A June 2015 decision by the New Jersey tax court exemplifies what could be view as “passive-aggressive separation of powers,” when the court basically says, “Surely the legislature could not have meant this entity (or this use of property) to qualify as charity.” This latest decision not only seems to render all “sophisticated centers of medical care” in New Jersey taxable, but also is causing sleepless nights for Princeton University: The same judge is hearing a challenge to the university's exemption brought by local taxpayers. New Jersey's January 2016 proposed legislation fell a pocket veto short of enactment: It would have imposed a formulary community-service fee on nonprofit hospitals. Legislative efforts are again underway. Perhaps such a third-way solution might become more common. Voluntary agreements for payments in lieu of taxes are literally all over the map, from Boston's revamped comprehensive PILOT program to a Florida appellate court's striking of a PILOT program as inconsistent with statutory exemption. Will the people's branch get the last word after all?