Tax Exemptions

Subscribe to Tax Exemptions

In today’s tax dollar hungry environment, municipalities are consistently searching for ways to increase their ratable base and in this regard are viewing tax exemption claims even more critically.  Real property tax exemptions are a creature of statute and run against the Constitutional mandate that all property is to be taxed uniformly, with all property owners required to shoulder their fair share of the local property tax burden.  As such, these exemptions are to be strictly construed and it is the burden of the applicant to prove entitlement to the exemption.  Abunda Life Church of Body, Mind & Spirit v. Asbury Park City, 18 N.J. Tax 483, 485 (1999) and Teaneck v. Lutheran Bible Inst., 20 N.J. 86, 90 (1955).

In a recently decided case, the New Jersey Tax Court held that although the municipality may have been correct in rejecting an exemption on the grounds that the property did not constitute a religious parsonage, it erred in denying the exemption as the property was deemed to be essential to the religious use and actually used in conjunction with the religious operations.  Mikvah Association v. Township of Teaneck, Docket Nos 015784-2014; 012594-2105; 010909-2016; and 012807-2017.

The relevant exemption statute, N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6, provides an exemption for:

[A]ll buildings actually used in the work of associations and corporations organized exclusively for religious purposes, including religious worship, or charitable purposes, provided that if any portion of a building used for that purpose is leased to a profit-making organization or is otherwise used for purposes which are not themselves exempt from taxation, that portion shall be subject to  taxation and the remaining portion shall be exempt from taxation … the buildings, not exceeding two, actually occupied as a parsonage by the officiating clergymen of any religious corporation of this State, together with the accessory buildings located on the same premises; the land whereon any of the buildings hereinbefore mentioned are erected, and which may be necessary for the fair enjoyment thereof, and which is devoted to the purposes above mentioned and to no other purpose and does not exceed five acres in extent ….

In Mikvah, the Tax Court rejected the availability of an exemption under the “parsonage” provision holding that the resident of the home, who was responsible for supervising the mikvah, did not qualify as an “officiating clergyperson.”  There the court found that the resident in question did not perform the expected duties of an officiating clergyperson in the context of the Jewish faith in that she did not perform such critical “officiating” tasks as teaching, leading, participating in religious services, providing sermons, or officiating at Congregation weddings, funerals and bar mitzvahs.  See City of Long Branch v. Ohel Yaacob Congregation, 20 N.J. Tax 511, 519 (2003).

Even though the court precluded exemption under the parsonage provision, it nonetheless found exemption of the residential structure to be appropriate in this instance because the resident of the property, which is located on the same street as the recognized exempt facility where religious bathing rituals are performed, was deemed to be the Ritual Director, responsible for maintenance and operation of the mikvah, and on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Because the religious organization property owner required the resident of the property to be physically proximate to the mikvah and readily accessible to ritual participants, the court found her to be a necessity for the proper and efficient operation of the mikvah and not simply residing in the residence as a matter of convenience for the resident.   Consequently, the Tax Court concluded that the residential property in which the Ritual Director resided with her family, was “actually used” in the operation of the mikvah and qualified for exemption pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6

The Opportunity Zone program enacted as part of the 2017 federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is designed to spark long-term capital investment into low-income and urban communities. The 169 Opportunity Zones (or tracts) designated in New Jersey by Governor Murphy are a complete game changer and contain attractive investment incentives for developers and investors.

Via the Opportunity Zone program, developers and investors can tap into and reinvest their unrealized capital gains without paying capital gains for a period of time, if at all. For example, capital gains invested or reinvested in an Opportunity Fund will receive a step up in basis of 10 percent if held for at least five years and by an additional 5 percent if held for at least 7 years, excluding up to 15 percent of the original gain from taxation.

An even greater savings is realized if the investment in the Opportunity Fund is held for at least 10 years. The gain accrued while invested is permanently excluded from taxable income of capital gains upon the sale or exchange of the investment.

With these tax incentives in place, Senator Corey Booker (NJ) believes the barriers between communities and the capital needed to generate economic growth and opportunity will be broken down.

The Opportunity Zones were designated based on key economic indicators in certain neighborhoods and communities such as income, unemployment rate and property values but also consideration was given to accessibility to mass transit and the value of existing investments. The 169 tracts were approved by the US Department of the Treasury on April 9, 2018. You can view the interactive map of designated Opportunity Zones for New Jersey by clicking here.

In an Advisory Opinion issued near the end of 2016, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has determined that the transfer of real property in New York State from an “exchange accommodation titleholder” to a taxpayer in connection with a so-called “reverse” like-kind exchange under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code is not subject to the New York State Real Property Transfer Tax. In the more typical or “forward” like-kind exchange, a taxpayer sells real property (the “relinquished” property) and deposits the proceeds from such sale with a qualified intermediary.  Subject to the rules established under IRC Section 1031, the qualified intermediary holds the proceeds until the taxpayer has identified one or more “replacement” properties and the proceeds are then held by the qualified intermediary are used to acquire the “replacement” property or properties.  In a “reverse” exchange, the “replacement” property is acquired before the “relinquished” property is sold by way of an “exchange accommodation titleholder” or EAT.  The EAT holds title to the “replacement” property (generally using a newly-formed limited liability company that is disregarded for tax purposes) until the taxpayer transfers the “relinquished” property.  The Advisory Opinion concisely describes the process of a “reverse” exchange and the rules governing “reverse” exchanges.

The taxpayer provides the funds used by the EAT to acquire the “replacement” property; the EAT does not use any of its own funds.  The funds provided to the EAT are generally evidenced by a promissory note and secured by a mortgage on the “replacement” property.  The taxpayer is also responsible for maintaining the “replacement” property, usually by way of a lease.  The EAT leases the “replacement” property to the taxpayer until the exchange is concluded, with the rent paid to the EAT being consistent with the debt service payments made by the EAT on the mortgage securing the loan from the taxpayer for the funds used by the EAT to acquire the “replacement” property.

The opinion examines the exemption to the payment of the Real Estate Transfer Tax allowed under Tax Law § 1405(b)(4) with respect to “conveyances of real property without consideration and otherwise than in connection with a sale, including conveyances of realty as a bona fide gifts.”  The opinion further states that two conveyances are made for consideration in a “reverse” exchange: the purchase of the replacement property by the EAT and the sale of the relinquished property by the QI to a purchaser.  The EAT is considered to be acting as the agent of the taxpayer by holding title to the “replacement” property for the purpose of timing under a like-kind exchange, no consideration was found to have been provided for the conveyance of the “replacement” property from the EAT to the taxpayer, thus qualifying for the exemption under Tax Law § 1405(b)(4).  In addition, the fees that the EAT receives from the taxpayer for its services in acting as the “exchange accommodation titleholder” were not deemed to be consideration subject to taxation.

As a side note, the New York City Department of Finance came to a similar conclusion in a letter ruling back in 2003 as to properties located within New York City with respect to the application of the New York City Real Estate Property Transfer Tax; the full text can be found here.  The full text of the Advisory Opinion from the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance can be found here.

In a recent tax court case, Holy Trinity Baptist Church v. City of Trenton (Docket No. 015909-2014, February 2, 2017), the court overturned the findings of the County Board of Taxation and upheld the tax exemption for religious/charitable use of properties pursuant to N.J.S.A. 54:4-6.3.  This statute exempts properties from taxation where “buildings [are] actually used in the work of associations and corporations organized exclusively for religious purposes, including religious worship, or charitable purposes.”  The Holy Trinity decision comes at a time when municipalities are aggressively challenging tax exemptions and was preceded by two other significant tax court cases discussed below.

Commencing with the tax court’s decision in AHS Hospital Corp. v. Town of Morristown, 28 N.J. Tax 456 (Tax 2015), involving the Morristown Memorial Hospital, it appears that elevated scrutiny by municipalities is calling the exempt status of many non-profit organizations into question.  In Morristown Memorial, the tax court found that the hospital’s entanglement with for-profit activities undermined the hospital’s ability to satisfy the well-recognized three prong exemption test.  This test requires an organization to establish that:  1) The organization is a New Jersey non-profit entity; 2) The non-profit entity is acting consistent with its charter in the performance of religious/charitable functions; and 3) The activities performed on the property are not conducted for profit.  Paper Mill Playhouse v. Millburn Township, 95 N.J. 503 (1984).  In reaching its conclusion the court in Morristown Memorial focused on the hospital’s failure to satisfy the third prong of the test.  In part, the court concluded that the activities conducted and services provided by the many private, for-profit physicians, dictated a finding that a significant portion of the hospital facilities were in fact being used for profit.  The court there also concluded that it was unable to distinguish and segregate those portions of the hospital facilities where the involvement of for-profit activities did not apply.  Consequently, other than in the most distinct and limited areas (e.g., the hospital parking garage, auditorium and in-house fitness center), the hospital facilities were deemed to be taxable.

More recently, the tax court was asked to focus on the exemption afforded non-profit universities.  In Fields v. Trustees of Princeton University, a group of third-party taxpayers challenged the exemption afforded Princeton University.  Although that matter was resolved without a trial, it appears the settlement may have been precipitated by the University’s concern with what has been widely perceived to be an increasingly unfriendly environment for the exempt treatment of non-profits in the aftermath of the Morristown Memorial decision.  The settlement, which only temporarily resolves the ultimate exemption question, requires the University to pay over $18 million dollars in payments to third-parties and contributions to the municipality (in the form of payments in lieu of taxes) through the year 2022 when the University’s settlement obligations expire.

With this recent history and the presence of numerous pending cases specifically attacking the exemptions afforded non-profit hospitals throughout the state, the tax court’s decision in Holy Trinity may offer non-profits, at least religious organizations, some solace from what appears to be a concerted effort on the part of municipalities to challenge the efficacy of real property tax exemptions in all areas.  Importantly, the Holy Trinity court concluded that despite evidence indicating that religious activities on the subject church property had diminished (as the church purchased a new property for its operations and had already commenced the process of shifting its activities to this new location), the church continued to make actual use of the property in furtherance of its religious purposes.  In particular, the Holy Trinity court found that the church continued its schedule of weekly meetings, made the space in question available for future meetings and gatherings, conducted receptions, and stored books at the location in connection with its religious/charitable functions.  As a result, the continued application of the tax exemption was determined to be appropriate in Holy Trinity.

The Holy Trinity court also made clear that neither an intent to sell the property nor diminished use of otherwise exempt property in of itself will destroy the tax exemption.  The court’s decision is consistent with City of Hackensack v. Bergen County, where the listing of the property for sale and removal of certain items to increase the marketability of the property were found to be insufficient to undermine the exemption.  Id. 405 N.J. Super. 35 (App. Div. 2009).  Further, the Holy Trinity court acknowledged that a property remains exempt even where a property’s use is limited to the occasional storage of goods used in furtherance of religious and charitable purposes.  Borough of Hamburg v. Trustee of Presbytery of Newton, 28 N.J. Tax 311, 319-320 (Tax 2015).

Consequently, in the current ratable hungry environment, non-profit organizations must now be more vigilant in ensuring that their properties continue to be used for the organization’s exempt or charitable purposes.  Only by regularly reviewing the entity’s activities and documenting continued property usage for its non-profit purposes, can these organizations improve the prospect of preserving the significant benefits that flow from application of this statutory exemption.

In a recent ground-breaking decision, the New Jersey Tax Court in AHS Hospital Corp., d/b/a Morristown Memorial Hospital v. Town of Morristown shattered the previous near incontestability of the tax exemption that has shielded nonprofit hospitals from local property tax obligations for over 100 years.  In response, the New Jersey Legislature, in conjunction with the New Jersey Hospital Association, quickly joined forces in an attempt to formulate a “fix” and alleviate the resulting great uncertainty that has left municipalities and nonprofit hospitals clamoring for answers.

The resulting bi-partisan supported fix, embodied by Bill No. 3299 (approved early this year) was sent to the Governor’s desk for signing with just days left in the recently completed legislative session.  Unfortunately, due to the fast track of this legislation, the late submission of the bill for consideration to the Governor’s office, claims of constitutional infirmity swirling, the Governor, not having been afforded adequate time for fair comment, instead allowed the time to lapse for taking action on the bill.  As a result, the bill was killed by virtue of the Governor’s pocket veto.

The import of this failed bill is that while it worked to attempt to reaffirm the longstanding exemption applicable to nonprofit hospital property, it also, in a controversial twist, declared that even those portions of the hospital that were being utilized for, or supporting, for-profit medical activities, should be exempted from taxation.  By attempting to continue the exemption, even for components deemed unquestionably “for-profit” by the tax court in the AHS Hospital case, this bill worked to effectively strip away the host municipality’s ability to effectively contest the applicability of the exemption.  In return, however, the Legislature attempted to create a special “Community Service Contribution” obligation that was to be borne by the hospital in lieu of paying taxes.  This contemplated Community Service Contribution was championed by the sponsors as being readily calculable and serving to remove the need for costly litigation to determine what, if any, portions of the hospital should remain exempt.  The funds received by the municipality through this “contribution” obligation in turn would have been earmarked to offset local expenses and financial hardships created by the presence of these typically large facilities that introduce thousands of patients, employees, professionals and associated vehicular activity into the community.  The failed bill therefore, although controversial, appeared to strike a reasonable balance between stakeholders, affording both hospitals and municipalities benefits that were left to chance in the unstable environment created in the aftermath of the recent tax court decision.

The killed bill would have required non-profit acute care hospitals to pay a Community Service Contribution equal to $2.50 a day for each licensed hospital bed at the exempt acute care facility.  In addition, satellite emergency care facilities of acute care hospitals would have been required to contribute $250 a day for each such facility.  These mandatory contributions were to have been made in equal quarterly installments and, as in the case of tax payments, payable on February 1, May 1, August 1 and November 1 of each year.  These new obligations were to also have been treated the same as other local tax obligations from an enforcement perspective (i.e., the same penalties for late payments and exposure to municipal lien foreclosure actions would apply in the event defaults).

The proposed legislation also dictated that 5% of these contribution payments were to be paid to the County.  Such fund sharing would not otherwise have been required in the traditional payments made in lieu of taxes (so-called “PILOT” payment) setting.  As a result, the failed bill also afforded county officials some measure of comfort and pre-empted any claims that counties were being unfairly ignored.

This failed legislation further afforded the subject hospitals and satellite emergency care facilities an opportunity to seek relief from these Community Service Contributions obligations where the facility was able to demonstrate that it: 1) had a negative operating margin in the prior tax year; 2) was not in full compliance with the financial terms of any bond covenants, 3) was in financial distress, or 4) was at risk of being in financial distress.

The present impasse however occasioned by the pocket veto continues an environment of uncertainty that will undoubtedly foster a spike in tax court actions to determine the scope and applicability of the hospital tax exemption.  Consequently, the question that remains is not if, but when, some refashioning of this proposed legislation will find its way back to the desk of the Governor for adoption.