Form Pt 05-34 - Property Tax Claim - Charitable Ownership/use Page 16
ADVERTISEMENT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16conclusion that it did nothing that could have some private benefit gave to anyone
associated with SPI. Tr. p. 92. But SPI’s factual admission proves too much. No
operations not only means that SPI did not obtain some private profit by its use of Vasa
Park, it also means that it conducted no charitable operations there, either.
Finally, while SPI’s organizational and other documents set forth its intended use
of Vasa Park (Department Ex. 3; Applicant Ex. 8), Illinois law is clear that “evidence that
land was acquired for an exempt purpose does not eliminate the need for proof of actual
use for that purpose. Intention to use is not the equivalent of use.” Skil Corp. v. Korzen,
32 Ill. 2d 249, 252, 204 N.E.2d 738, 740 (1965). In sum, I agree with the Department’s
argument that, based on SPI’s admissions and the evidence adduced at hearing, SPI
cannot prove that it was operated as an institution of public charity during the applicable
period. Nor can it prove that it used Vasa Park exclusively for charitable purposes during
that period. Methodist Old Peoples Home, 39 Ill. 2d at 157, 233 N.E.2d at 542; Skil
Corp., 32 Ill. 2d at 252, 204 N.E.2d at 740.
Conclusion:
I recommend that the Director finalize the Department’s tentative denial of SPI’s
application for a partial year property tax exemption, and that the property remain taxable
through all of 2003.
Date: 8/5/2005
John E. White
Administrative Law Judge
16
ADVERTISEMENT
0 votes
Related Articles
Related forms
Related Categories
Parent category: Legal