15. Landmarks claims an exemption under two statutes: Ind.
Code I.C. § 6-1.1-10-16(a) and Ind. Code § 6-1.1-10-18(a). The first exempts
all or part of a building that is owned, occupied, and predominantly used for
educational, literary, scientific, religious, or charitable purposes. I.C. §
6-1.1-10-16(a); I.C. § 6-1.1-10-36.3. That exemption extends to the land on
which the building is situated. I.C. § 6-1.1-10-16(c). The second statute exempts
tangible property “if it is owned by an Indiana not-for-profit corporation which
is organized and operated for the primary purpose of coordinating, promoting, encouraging,
housing, or providing financial support to activities in the field of fine
arts.” I.C. § 6-1.1-10-18(a). The field of fine arts includes architecture. See
I.C. 6-1.1-10-18(b).
16. Exemption statutes are strictly construed against the
person claiming the exemption. See Sangralea Boys Fund, Inc. v. State Bd. of
Tax Comm’rs, 686 N.E.2d 954, 956 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997). But they are not to be
construed so narrowly as to frustrate the legislature’s purpose. Id.; see also,
Trinity Episcopal Church v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 694 N.E.2d 816, 818 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 1998).
17. Landmarks was organized for exempt purposes—to promote
architecturally significant sites and structures. And it bought the subject
property to further those purposes. The Assessor does not really dispute those
facts. Instead, she argues that because Landmarks had not yet moved its offices
to the property on the assessment date, the property was not occupied and used
for exempt purposes as required by Ind. Code § 6-1.1-10-16(a).
18. The Assessor apparently ignores Ind. Code § 6-1.1-10-18,
which unlike Ind. Code § 6-1.1-10-16(a), says nothing about occupancy.
Regardless, the fact that Landmarks had not finished moving its offices to the
subject property as of the assessment date, by itself, would not defeat
Landmarks' exemption claim.
19. In Trinity Episcopal Church, the taxpayer claimed an
exemption under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-10-16(a) for a building that it was
renovating to lease for use as a community mental health center. The State
Board of Tax Commissioners denied the exemption because it determined that the
building was vacant on the assessment date. Trinity Episcopal Church, 694
N.E.2d at 817.
20. The Indiana Tax Court reversed, holding that a
taxpayer’s actions in preparing a building to be used for exempt purposes in
the future may qualify the building for property tax exemption under Ind. Code
§ 6-1.1-10-16(a). Id. at 818. But as the court explained, ownership alone does
not suffice; the intent to use a property for an exempt purpose must be “more
than a mere dream.” Id. (quoting Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ
v. Sate Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 550 N.E.2d 850, 854 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1990)). The
intent of the taxpayer in Trinity Episcopal Church was not a mere dream;
instead, it had taken concrete steps at great expense to prepare its building
for use as a mental health center. The building qualified for an exemption
because, as of the assessment date, the taxpayer held the building with the
intent to use it for exempt purposes in the future. Id. at 818-19.
21. Like the taxpayer in Trinity Episcopal Church, Landmarks
bought the subject property intending to use it for an exempt purpose and took
concrete steps toward that use, even if it did not fully occupy the property on
March 1. Landmarks transferred the building’s utilities to its name and began
moving files to the building immediately after buying it. Landmarks similarly
arranged to have the building painted and plastered before attempting to move
furniture and equipment from its existing office.
22. The Board therefore finds that the subject property was
exempt for the March 1, 2011 assessment date.
