The Petitioner offered very
little evidence to demonstrate that its property meets the requirements of the
statute. More specifically, the Petitioner focused on its status as a 501(c)(3)
tax exempt entity as a basis for a property tax exemption. But the letter from the
IRS grants Beasley Ministries Inc. exemption as a 501(c)(3) organization, not
the Petitioner (i.e., Living Word of God Ministries). This distinction is
significant because the Petitioner failed to explain how or if Beasley
Ministries is related to the Living Word of God Ministries.
Moreover, even if one assumes
that the Petitioner is related to or the same as Beasley Ministries Inc., the
grant of a federal or state income tax exemption does not necessarily entitle a
taxpayer to a property tax exemption. Indeed, an income tax exemption does not depend
on how property is used, but on how money is spent. See Raintree Friends Housing, Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of Revenue, 667 N.E.2d 810,
813 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1996) (non-profit status does not automatically entitle a
taxpayer to tax exemption).
Thus, the Board must look at the
use of the property to determine whether an exemption should be granted. The
subject property is currently used as rental property to offset the Petitioner’s
costs. While the Petitioner contends that the subject property is a tool of the
ministry and has helped with the ministry needs of the community, the
Petitioner failed to provide substantial evidence or even explain how renting
the subject property to people within its ministry constitutes a charitable or
religious purpose.
The Petitioner failed to show
that its property was owned, occupied and predominately used for a charitable
purpose for the 2011 assessment. Where the Petitioner has not supported its
claim with probative evidence, the Respondent’s duty to support the assessment
with substantial evidence is not triggered. Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215,
1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/2536.htm
