Here Ms. Masterson argues that
the subject property should be 100% exempt for the 2011 assessment year,
because the property is a convent and used for religious purposes. She seeks
the exemption under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-10-16. The Respondent, however, contends
that the property is 100% taxable, because it is predominantly used as a
residence and is merely owned by a very religious person.
Petitioner Missionaries of Divine
Compassion, Inc. is a corporation that Ms. Masterson established on March 30,
2007. She is the President of the corporation as well as one of its three
incorporators. No evidence was submitted regarding the other two incorporators.
Ms. Masterson created the entity herself. Her involvement and probable control
of the corporation is substantially different from a house provided and owned
by a church for its pastors or nuns.
The Petitioner must prove the
predominant use of the property was for religious purposes for the 2011
assessment year. Ms. Masterson did not present any exhibits to demonstrate the
actual use of the property except for the financial records sent to the Board
with the petition. She testified that she is a nun and that the subject
property is a convent of the Franciscan Missionaries of Divine Compassion. She
stated that Petitioner is organized primarily to carry out a ministry of
prayer. The property is zoned residential and is comprised of a lot and house
located at 311 6th Street. The upstairs of the house contains two Sisters’
bedrooms, a chapel, kitchen and living room. The lower level contains a library
and additional bedrooms to house “occasional” guests and retreatants.
The only other Sister in the
home, Shannon Choquet, moved into the property in December 2012. Because this
was after the 2011 assessment year at issue in this case, her use of the
property as a nun in formation and the amount of time Ms. Masterson spends
training her is not probative for Petitioner’s argument of predominant
religious use. Ms. Masterson also testified that a man is going to reside at
the house later this summer. Once again, his training by Ms. Masterson is not
probative of religious use at the time of the assessment year at issue. The
other woman, Julie Black, lived at the subject property prior to Ms. Choquet.
Ms. Black was at the subject property for less than six months. Ms. Masterson
gave no information concerning whether Ms. Black actually lived at the property
during the 2011 assessment year. Therefore, it is difficult to give Ms.
Masterson much, if any, credit for time spent training Ms. Black.
Ms. Masterson stated that she
tends to work with one or two mentally ill persons at a time, providing two
hour inner healing sessions a few times a month. She did not provide any
evidence of when these sessions occurred or at what frequency. And two hour sessions
a few times of month do not demonstrate a significant amount of time spent on religious
activities.
Ms. Masterson testified that
there have been a couple friars who would periodically stay at the property.
Father Gregory Mashburn and Brother Tom Rafter did not reside at the property
but would come for retreats and meetings. No further information was given as far
as when these men actually visited the property or for how long. The Petitioner
Corporation was formed in 2007. These men could have visited anywhere from 2007
to 2013. Therefore, it is unknown what amount of religious use can be
attributed to the subject property in 2011 for any retreats or meetings these
men may have attended.
Ms. Masterson works eight hours a
day, four days a week as a chiropractor at Masterson Chiropractic Clinic. She
testified that she keeps her chiropractic practice completely separate from her
practice as a nun. Ms. Masterson earns income from her personal profession as a
chiropractor at the clinic and then channels money into the Petitioner Corporation.
Petitioner had the burden to
prove that the property was entitled to an exemption. There is no concrete
evidence of anyone besides Ms. Masterson using the subject property for religious
purposes during the 2011 assessment year. The only other person that could possibly
have been residing at the property was Ms. Black, and Ms. Masterson testified that
she was fraudulent in her intentions of becoming a nun. Ms. Masterson lives at
the subject property while working at her outside business as a full time
chiropractor. She eats, sleeps, and keeps her clothing at the property as any
normal resident does in a typical home. Even though she testified about
isolated pockets of religious activity at the subject property, the quantity of
such activities was undefined by Ms. Masterson. She did not provide enough
specific details to show that religious use occurs more than 50% of the time at
this property. While it is clear the subject property is used as a residence and
there is some religious use, the Petitioner failed to prove the
predominant use is religious.
There is nothing in the Indiana
Code that pertains specifically to a convent. The similarity between a convent
and a parsonage, however, is strong enough to examine the property as a
parsonage. Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-21 states that a “a building that is used as
a parsonage” and the “tract of land, not exceeding fifteen (15) acres, upon
which a building that is used as a parsonage is situated” is exempt from
property taxation if it is owned by, or held in trust for the use of, a church
or religious society. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-10-21(b). Ms. Masterson testified that
“the entity is organized as a church with a monastery being a subdivision of
the whole church mentality.” No other evidence was given to prove this fact.
The evidence Ms. Masterson offered, therefore, is insufficient to show that the
subject property is owned or held in trust for use by a religious society as required
under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-10-21(b).
To obtain an exemption for a
parsonage, a church or religious society must also provide the county assessor
with an affidavit signed under oath by the church’s or religious society’s head
rabbi, priest, preacher, minister or pastor at the time it applies for the exemption.
Ind. Code § 6-1.1-10-21(c). The affidavit must state the parsonage is being used
to house the church’s priest, preacher, ministers or pastors and that none of
the parsonage is used to make a profit. Id. Petitioner did not submit
such an affidavit to the assessor. The Petitioner failed to prove that the
subject property satisfies the requirements for exemption under Ind. Code §
6-1.1-10-21(c).
