United States: New Jersey Tax Court Holds Hospital Unable To Claim Exemption From Property Tax

The New Jersey Tax Court recently held that a nonprofit hospital was not entitled to an exemption from property tax assessed by the town of Morristown for the 2006-2008 tax years because the hospital failed to provide evidence that the operation and use of its property was entirely conducted under a nonprofit motive.1 Focusing on a popular topic in the area of property tax, the Tax Court thoroughly considered the applicability of the nonprofit hospital's entire property tax exemption. Following the decision, the hospital settled the litigation with Morristown for $15.5 million in payments over a ten-year period.

Background

Morristown Memorial Hospital first opened in 1893 and operated on a 1.1 million square foot campus in Morristown, New Jersey. The hospital provided a comprehensive range of medical services and maintained 700 hospital beds. Because the property which contained the hospital was exempt from property taxes prior to 2006, it had not previously been assessed for property tax purposes.

The hospital claimed a statutory exemption for the property of nonprofit organizations for the 2006-2008 tax years.2 Interpreting this statutory exemption in Paper Mill Playhouse v. Millburn Township,3 the New Jersey Supreme Court had previously adopted three criteria that must be met for a hospital to receive the exemption: (i) the subject property must be owned by an entity organized exclusively for a tax-exempt purpose (the "organization" test); (ii) nearly all of the subject property must actually be used for hospital purposes (the "use" test); and (iii) its operation and use of property must not be conducted for profit (the "profit" test).

The town of Morristown levied omitted assessments on the property owned by the hospital for the 2006 and 2007 tax years, and a tax assessment for the 2008 tax year. Morristown claimed the hospital was precluded from the tax exemption because the property was conducted for profit. Litigation commenced, and in 2010, the Tax Court determined that the property was owned by an entity organized exclusively for a tax-exempt purpose, and nearly all of the property was actually used for hospital purposes, therefore meeting the organization and use tests. However, the Tax Court ruled that leased office space and a café located in the hospital were conducted for profit, therefore violating the profit test, subjecting those areas of the hospital to the property tax. As for the rest of the property, the Tax Court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed.

Following oral argument, the Tax Court reaffirmed its own initial ruling that the leased office space and café were for-profit ventures. In several orders issued in 2013 and 2014, the Tax Court again held that the organization and use tests were satisfied, with the exception of the hospital's gift shop. The final issue before the Tax Court in this matter was whether the remaining areas of the property were conducted for profit.

Tax Court Addresses Profit Test

In its final decision, the Tax Court ultimately determined that with the exception of the hospital's auditorium, fitness center and the visitors' garage, the hospital's property tax exemption claim was denied because it did not satisfy the profit test. In doing so, the Tax Court went into voluminous detail into how to determine whether the operation and use of property were for profit for the various areas of the hospital. The Court focused predominantly on the various types of physicians employed by the hospital, the salaries paid to its employees and executives, and whether it was possible to discern and delineate between the for-profit and non-profit activities of the hospital.

With respect to the various types of physicians employed at the hospital, the Tax Court identified employed physicians, voluntary physicians, and exclusive contract physicians as the three relevant classes of physicians to consider. Employed physicians were selected by the hospital based on "community need" with respect to certain fields of medicine. Voluntary physicians were considered to be private, for profit, self-employed physicians practicing in the community, with privileges to treat patients at the hospital. Likewise, exclusive contract physicians which provided medical services in various specialty fields throughout the hospital operated on a private, for-profit basis. The hospital had no restrictions or limitations with respect to where all three categories of physicians practiced. Moreover, employed, voluntary, and exclusive contract physicians operated throughout the entire property including the hospital. The Tax Court noted that under prior precedent, an organization claiming exemption could have both exempt and non-exempt uses on its property as long as the two purposes could be separated and identified, with the non-exempt use not being eligible for the property tax exemption.4 Generally, the Tax Court could not separate and identify the exempt and non-exempt uses of the property, in part based on the lack of restriction on where the for-profit and not-for-profit physicians worked, and denied the hospital's exemption request for most of the areas of the hospital.

In analyzing the profit test, The Tax Court also considered the benefits flowing from the hospital to related and unrelated for-profit entities. The hospital engaged in significant loans and other financial dealings with private physician practices, related captive insurance companies, and unrelated companies. The Tax Court concluded that this activity served to entangle the hospital's activities and operations with for profit-entities, and allowed the property to be used for profit.

With respect to its focus on hospital executive salaries, the Tax Court conducted an analysis to determine if such salaries were excessive, and indicative of a for-profit enterprise. In doing so, the Tax Court considered whether the salaries were comparable to other salaries paid by similar institutions. In determining that the salaries were excessive, the Court relied on the "incentive component" of the employed physicians' contracts. The Court concluded incentive components were "derived from departmental expenses and the profit was split between the hospital and the employed physicians," therefore indicating a profit-making purpose. The Court determined this incentive provision of the employed physicians' contracts violated the profit test.

The Tax Court then looked to agreements between the hospital and third parties to provide support services on the property to determine which support services could be considered not-for-profit, potentially allowing for a partial property tax exemption. The Tax Court determined that the visitors' parking garage was exempt from property tax as the financial arrangement between the hospital and the operator of the garage consisted of a fixed management fee. In contrast, the Tax Court determined that the areas of the hospital in which a support services company provided food and nutrition services, catering, environmental services, laundry and linen distribution, patient transportation, and plant operations maintenance was not exempt because the financial arrangement between the two parties was based in part on cost savings and constituted profit-sharing. The Tax Court also determined that the property on which the hospital's gift shop was located was not exempt because it did not satisfy the use test. According to the Tax Court, the gift shop did not serve a "core hospital purpose" and was simply a convenience for hospital visitors. Finally, the Tax Court found that the hospital's auditorium and fitness center qualified as exempt property, while the day care area and cafeteria were not exempt.

Commentary

New Jersey and many other states employ similar standards with respect to whether a charitable organization is exempt from property taxes. As made clear by the Tax Court's decision, the Paper Mill Playhouse three-part test to determining whether or not a charitable organization is entitled to an exemption from property tax retains its vitality, particularly the profit test. Based on this decision, it is relatively clear that New Jersey courts will not hesitate to heavily scrutinize a charitable organization's operation and use of its subject property.

Following the Tax Court's published decision, near the end of 2015, the hospital and the town of Morristown settled this matter for the 2006 through 2015 assessment years prior to further litigation. Pursuant to the settlement, the hospital will pay approximately $15.5 million to Morristown over a ten-year period, consisting of approximately $5.5 million in penalties and interest, as well as an annual tax payment of over $1 million representing an assessment on about 24 percent of the hospital property.5

On January 11, 2016, the New Jersey legislature passed legislation concerning the property tax exemption for certain nonprofit hospitals.6 However, Governor Chris Christie pocket vetoed the legislation by allowing it to expire unsigned at the conclusion of the legislative session. The bill, if enacted, would have maintained property tax exemptions for nonprofit hospitals that had on-site, for-profit medical providers. In addition, the bill required such hospitals to pay community service contributions to the local municipality, established a Nonprofit Hospital Community Service Contribution Study Commission, and prohibited the assessment of a nonprofit hospital as an omitted property for tax years 2014 and 2015.7 In response, on March 18, 2016, Governor Christie announced the formation of a new Property Tax Exemption Study Commission in conjunction with a two-year freeze on property tax assessments for previously exempt hospitals.8 This action is intended to provide the state with the information and time necessary to develop the proper solution for the property tax exemption for nonprofit hospitals. Legislation for these initiatives will need to be passed by the legislature and approved by Governor Christie.

Courts in other states recently have evaluated these issues. In 2012, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court considered the property tax exemption for a purely public charity.9 To be considered a "purely public charity" in Pennsylvania for purposes of tax-exempt status, all institutions must satisfy the five-part definition under Article VIII, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution (commonly known as the HUP test).10 In 1997, Pennsylvania enacted legislation, the Institutions of Purely Public Charity Act, which provides a more lenient test (commonly known as the Act 55 test) for determining whether an institution is a purely public charity.11 In this case, the institution argued that it was not required to meet the HUP test if it satisfied the Act 55 test. The Court disagreed and held that institutions must continue to satisfy the more stringent HUP test.

In 2010, a majority of the Illinois Supreme Court held that a religiously-affiliated Illinois hospital was not entitled to an exemption from property tax because it failed to establish that it was a charitable institution.12 In addition, a plurality of the Court determined that the hospital failed to demonstrate that its property was actually exclusively used for charitable purposes. This decision raised questions about what sufficiently constitutes charitable use for property owned by charitable institutions, especially hospitals, in Illinois. In response to this decision, in 2012, Illinois enacted legislation creating a new category of charitable exemption for hospitals.13 The Illinois Appellate Court recently held that this statutory exemption for hospital property based on the value of the charitable services the hospital provided was unconstitutional.14 Specifically, the Court found that the exemption violated constitutional language limiting the available property tax exemption to property used exclusively for charitable purposes.

As discussed above, the standards for determining whether property owned by a nonprofit entity is eligible for a tax exemption are similar between many states, but there are intricacies in many jurisdictions and the standards sometimes are difficult to apply. Nonprofit entities attempting to obtain a property tax exemption in jurisdictions that strictly scrutinize the entities' nonprofit use of the property may have planning options to consider. For example, in an effort to preserve a portion of a property tax exemption, the entity may wish to isolate its nonprofit activity and employees performing this activity in a separate subsidiary. If imbued with proper business purpose and economic substance, this type of restructuring could be used as a means to ensure that a company's nonprofit activities are distinct from other activities that are conducted for profit. Of course, this type of planning requires consideration of how such a restructuring could impact the company from an overall tax and business perspective.

Footnotes

1 AHS Hospital Corp. v. Town of Morristown, New Jersey Tax Court, Nos. 010900-2007, 010901-2007, 000406-2008, June 25, 2015.

2 N.J. REV. STAT. § 54:4-3.6, which states in relevant part, "The following shall be exempt from taxation under this chapter . . . all buildings actually used in the work of associations and corporations organized for hospital purposes, provided that if any portion of a building used for hospital purposes is leased to profit-making organizations or otherwise used for purposes which are not themselves exempt from taxation, that portion shall be subject to taxation and the remaining portion only shall be exempt . . . provided, in case of all the foregoing, the buildings, or the lands on which they stand, or the associations, corporations or institutions using and occupying them as aforesaid, are not conducted for profit . . .. The foregoing exemption shall apply only where the association, corporation or institution claiming the exemption owns the property in question and is incorporated or organized under the laws of this State and authorized to carry out the purposes on account of which the exemption is claimed . . .."

3 472 A.2d 517 (N.J. 1984).

4 International Schools Services, Inc. v. West Windsor Township, 21 A.3d 1166 (N.J. 2011).

5 As reported by Tim Darragh, NJ.com, "Atlantic Health to Pay Morristown $15.5M to Settle Tax Case," Nov. 10, 2015; As reported by Tim Darragh, NJ.com, "Atlantic Health to Pay Morristown $15.5M to Settle Tax Case," Nov. 10, 2015; http://www.nj.com/morris/index.ssf/2015/11/atlantic_health_to_pay_morristown_155m_to_settle_t.html.

6 S.B. 3299.

7 Id.

8 Press Release, Office of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, March 18, 2016.

9 Mesivtah Eitz Chaim of Bobov, Inc. v. Pike County Board of Assessment Appeals, 44 A.3d 3 (Pa. 2012).

10 This test derives its name from Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 487 A.2d 1306 (Pa. 1985). Under this test, an institution qualifies as a "purely public charity" if it: (i) advances a charitable purpose; (ii) donates or renders gratuitously a substantial portion of its services; (iii) benefits a substantial and indefinite class of persons who are legitimate subjects of charity; (iv) relieves the government of some of its burden; and (v) operates entirely free from private profit motive.

11 10 PA. STAT. ANN. §§ 371-385. This provides institutions with a more favorable standard for meeting the "relieving government of some of its burden" test.

12 Provena Covenant Medical Ctr. v. Department of Revenue, 925 N.E.2d 1131 (Ill. 2010).

13 P.A. 97-688 (S.B. 2194), Laws 2012, enacting 35 ILL. COMP. STAT. 200/15-86.

14 Carle Foundation v. Cunningham Township, Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, Nos. 4-14- 0795, 4-14-0845, Jan. 5, 2016. For a discussion of this case, see GT SALT Alert: Illinois Appellate Court Finds Hospital Property Tax Exemption Unconstitutional.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions