Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and
Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.
VIRGINIA BAPTIST HOMES, INC.,
ET AL.
v. Record No. 072042 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS
October 31, 2008
BOTETOURT COUNTY
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BOTETOURT COUNTY
Michael S. Irvine, Judge
In this appeal, we consider whether Virginia Baptist
Homes, Inc.’s (“VBH”) property known as “The Glebe” in
Botetourt County is exempt from local property taxation under
Code § 58.1-3650.33.
I. Facts and Proceedings Below
A. VBH and The Glebe, Inc.
VBH is a non-stock, not-for-profit corporation that was
organized by the Baptist General Association of Virginia in
1946 to provide a home for aged Baptists in Virginia. In 1976
the General Assembly designated VBH as a tax-exempt
corporation under Chapter 668 of the Acts of Assembly that was
originally codified in the Virginia Code as § 58-12.45 and is
now codified as § 58.1-3650.33. 1984 Acts ch. 675.
Specifically, the General Assembly exempted VBH from personal
and real property taxes so long as the property is “used in
accordance with the purpose for which [VBH] is classified,”
pursuant to Code § 58.1-3650.33.
1
At the time that VBH was designated a tax-exempt
corporation, its sole purpose was to establish and provide
retirement communities for the elderly. From 1946 until now
VBH has never had another purpose other than operating the
retirement homes for the aged. Its Articles of Incorporation
still lists its only purpose as operating its four retirement
homes for the elderly. While the language in VBH’s Articles
of Incorporation has been revised and altered over the years,
VBH’s only purpose of providing and operating retirement
communities has not changed.
In 1998, The Glebe, Inc. (“TGI”) was formed as a non-
stock, not-for-profit corporation with VBH as its sole member.
VBH’s Articles of Incorporation were amended to show TGI as
one of the corporations it supports. VBH purchased real
property in Botetourt County upon which a new retirement
community, called “The Glebe,” was to be built. The Glebe,
like VBH’s other three retirement communities, is a
“continuing care retirement community” with three levels of
care: independent living, assisted living, and nursing care.
As a resident’s health care needs change, he or she may move
to a different level of care.
In order for The Glebe facility to be built, VBH loaned
$1.3 million to TGI, at a 5% interest rate, to be repaid
beginning in the year 2016. VBH also loaned TGI $3.3 million,
2
with no interest, to be repaid starting in the year 2036. VBH
gave TGI approximately $4.5 million of benevolent funds from
its other retirement communities and its ministry.
Collectively, this money represented approximately 14% of the
cost of building The Glebe facility. The remaining $55.3
million were borrowed through tax-exempt bonds.
TGI began to market The Glebe in 2003. As of the date of
trial in March 2007, TGI had spent approximately $3.6 million
in advertising and marketing. Advertisements that ran from
2003 to 2005 emphasized that The Glebe was a “resort”
community or “resort-style retirement living.” The
advertisements emphasized luxury amenities, such as “[v]aulted
ceilings,” “[r]ich hardwood cabinets,” “[s]pacious rooms,” and
“stunning views of the Blue Ridge Mountains.”
A feasibility study prepared for TGI prior to
construction showed that the median sales price in TGI’s
primary and secondary geographic market areas in 2003 was
$138,400. In contrast, the entrance fees for The Glebe in
2003 ranged from $98,150 for a single person in a one bedroom,
one bathroom apartment to $249,260 for a couple in the largest
2 bedroom, 2 bathroom cottage. In addition to the entrance
fee, residents at The Glebe must also pay monthly charges. In
2003, these monthly charges were projected to range from
$1,743 to $3,628 for residency alone. The residents are
3
charged additional fees for ancillary charges such as
telephone, Internet, housekeeping, and dining services, and
may be charged additional fees if moved to assisted living or
health care center units. The feasibility study showed that
in TGI’s primary and secondary geographic market areas, only
24.3% of people age 65 or older were income eligible to be
admitted to The Glebe in 2002, and projected that only 31.5%
would be income eligible in 2007.
Terms of the tax-exempt bonds issued required TGI to
guarantee that 70% of its residents would have sufficient
funds to pay for their care. As a result, TGI requires an
applicant to fill out a confidential financial statement and
go through a screening process to be admitted. Initially,
applicants would not be considered unless they were calculated
to be able to pay for all of their lifetime care. The
calculation of a resident’s ability to pay is based on his
actuarial life, his holdings, and his income. Because of this
requirement, only about 20% of the age-eligible population
could be admitted. As of 2006, TGI changed its policy so that
an applicant could be admitted if his financial forecast
indicated that he would run out of assets within two years of
the end of his life expectancy.
If a resident in one of VBH’s three facilities in
Culpeper, Newport News, or Richmond outlives his assets, VBH
4
provides direct financial assistance to that resident. From
1999 to 2005, VBH provided approximately $5.6 million in
financial assistance to residents in those communities. In
contrast to VBH’s other facilities and with the possible
exception of one resident, VBH and TGI currently offer no
financial assistance or gratuitous care for those applicants
who do not meet the financial requirements to be admitted to
The Glebe. There are two charitable funds developed for TGI.
One has a balance of approximately $51,000 and the other
approximately $15,000. Those funds come from various
charitable gifts, bequests, and donations; however, they are
not currently being utilized.
Dr. Randall Robinson (“Dr. Robinson”), the president of
VBH and TGI, testified that although TGI could not accept
residents regardless of their ability to pay, TGI plans to do
so in the future. Dr. Robinson testified that VBH was
committed to building an endowment to help people enter The
Glebe facility, and that VBH was already conducting an ongoing
fundraising campaign.
There is no requirement that a resident or staff member
of The Glebe adhere to any religious belief. The Glebe
includes a chapel, but as one of VBH’s witnesses testified
“[t]hat chapel is a meditation chapel and it’s for prayer and
5
meditation.” However, weekly services are held by visiting
clergy in The Glebe’s Botetourt Room, which holds more people.
B. Proceedings
In 2005, Botetourt County (“the County”) issued real
estate tax bills to VBH charging a total of $7,591.50 in real
estate taxes for the tax year 2005 arising from its ownership
of The Glebe. VBH appealed the assessments to the County
Commissioner of Revenue. The County Commissioner denied the
appeal, finding that The Glebe did not qualify as property
used “by [VBH] exclusively for religious or benevolent
purposes” under Code § 58.1-3650.33(B). VBH requested that
the Commissioner state in writing the facts and law supporting
his conclusion. The Commissioner did not reply.
The County filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of
Botetourt County, seeking a declaration that VBH and TGI are
subject to taxation by the County and that each lacks
entitlement to tax exemption for The Glebe. VBH answered the
complaint and filed a demurrer the same day, arguing that the
County was “attempting to undermine the . . . General
Assembly’s designation that property used by VBH is exempt
from taxation” under Code § 58.1-3650.33(B). The County
responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, and VBH
filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court
denied the demurrer, the County’s motion for summary judgment,
6
and VBH’s cross-motion. Following a bench trial, the trial
court held that “VBH and its operations of The Glebe in
Botetourt County do not satisfy the requirements necessary to
be exempt from property taxes pursuant to [Code] § 58.1-3650
and [Code] § 58.1-3650.33.” VBH appeals the trial court’s
judgment on nine assignments of error:
1. The trial court erred in ruling that VBH’s property known
as The Glebe is not exempt from local property taxes
despite the tax exemption by designation granted by the
General Assembly in Code § 58.1-3650.33.
2. The trial court erred in holding that The Glebe property
is not used exclusively for religious or benevolent
purposes.
3. The trial court erred in ruling that the principle of
strict construction prevented it from applying the
exemption found in Code § 58.1-3650.33(B).
4. The trial court erred in holding that the dominant
purpose of the property known as The Glebe does not
immediately and directly promote VBH’s religious and
benevolent purposes.
5. The trial court erred in holding that by amending its
articles of incorporation to reflect its operations in a
parent-subsidiary structure, VBH fundamentally changed
its purpose and no longer serves the benevolent purposes
that led the General Assembly to grant the exemption to
VBH’s property.
6. The trial court erred in not granting VBH’s summary
judgment motion.
7. The trial court erred in not granting VBH’s motion to
strike.
8. The trial court erred in holding that VBH does not
subsidize the cost of care at The Glebe.
7
9. The trial court erred in rejecting the evidence regarding
VBH’s commitments to providing direct financial
assistance as The Glebe matures.
II. Analysis
This Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation
utilizing a de novo standard of review. Virginia Polytechnic
Inst. & State Univ. v. Interactive Return Serv., 271 Va. 304,
309, 626 S.E.2d 436, 438 (2006). Furthermore, we have held
that the issue of property tax exemption is a mixed question
of fact and law and thereby must be reviewed de novo, giving
deference to the trial court’s factual findings. Smyth County
Community Hosp. v. Town of Marion, 259 Va. 328, 336, 527
S.E.2d 401, 405 (2000); The Daily Press, Inc. v. City of
Newport News, 265 Va. 304, 309, 576 S.E.2d 430, 432-33 (2003).
The Constitution of Virginia provides in pertinent part:
Article X
Taxation and Finance
. . . .
§ 6. Exempt property. – (a) Except as otherwise
provided in this Constitution, the following
property and no other shall be exempt from
taxation, State and local, including
inheritance taxes:
. . . .
(6) Property used by its owner for
religious, charitable, patriotic, historical,
benevolent, cultural, or public park and
playground purposes, as may be provided by
classification or designation by an ordinance
adopted by the local governing body and subject
8
to such restrictions and conditions as provided
by general law.
Va. Const. art. X, § 6. Pursuant to this constitutional
authority, the General Assembly provided for tax-exempt
property designations.
A. The real and personal property of an
organization designated by a section within
this article and used by such organization
exclusively for a religious, charitable,
patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural or
public park and playground purpose as set forth
in Article X, Section 6(a)(6) of the
Constitution of Virginia, the particular
purpose for which such organization is
classified being specifically set forth within
each section, shall be exempt from taxation so
long as such organization is operated not for
profit and the property so exempt is used in
accordance with the purpose for which the
organization is classified. In addition, such
exemption may be revoked in accordance with the
provisions of § 58.1-3605.
B. Exemptions of property from taxation under
this article shall be strictly construed in
accordance with the provisions of Article X,
Section 6(f) of the Constitution of Virginia.
(1984, c. 675; 1995, c. 346.)
Code § 58.1-3650.
Pursuant to this statutory scheme, the General Assembly
has provided specific designation of tax exemption to
numerous organizations. The designation at issue in this
case was granted to VBH, codified at § 58.1-3650.33, and
provides as follows:
A. The Virginia Baptist Homes, Inc., a
nonstock, nonprofit organization, is hereby
9
classified and designated as a religious and
benevolent organization within the context of
Section 6(a)(6) of Article X of the
Constitution of Virginia.
B. Property owned by the Virginia Baptist
Homes, Inc. and used by it exclusively for
religious or benevolent purposes on a nonprofit
basis, as set forth in subsection A. of this
section, is hereby determined to be exempt from
taxation, State and local, including
inheritance taxes.
As we noted in Westminster-Canterbury of Hampton Roads v. City
of Virginia Beach, 238 Va. 493, 498, 385 S.E.2d 561, 564
(1989), the General Assembly has also provided for tax
exemption by classification. See Code § 58.1-3606 and Code
§ 58.1-3609. We noted that, “the General Assembly
deliberately created this classification-designation dichotomy
in the field of tax exemption, reserving unto itself the
authority to grant exemptions where entitlement under the
stricter terms of the classification statutes might be
doubtful.” Id. at 501-02, 385 S.E.2d at 566.
The trial court held that under Code § 58.1-3650.33(B)
The Glebe was not being used exclusively for religious or
benevolent purposes. We disagree with the trial court’s
analysis, statutory construction, and ultimate determination
that The Glebe is not tax-exempt property.
The General Assembly provided for VBH’s tax exemption by
designation pursuant to Code § 58.1-3650.33. When
10
interpreting a statute, courts “are required to ‘ascertain and
give effect to the intention of the legislature,’ which is
usually self-evident from the statutory language.” Virginia
Polytechnic Inst., 271 Va. at 309, 626 S.E.2d at 438, citing
Chase v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 266 Va. 544, 547, 587 S.E.2d
521, 522 (2003). Furthermore, “[w]hen the language in a
statute is clear and unambiguous, [this Court] appl[ies] the
statute according to its plain language.” Virginia
Polytechnic Inst., 271 Va. at 309, 626 S.E.2d at 438.
When VBH was granted the tax-exempt designation by the
General Assembly, VBH’s sole purpose was to operate retirement
homes for the elderly. Knowing that VBH’s only purpose was to
provide and manage retirement facilities for the aged, the
General Assembly designated VHB as a “religious and
benevolent” organization that was tax-exempt. See Code
§ 58.1-3650.33. Therefore, because the General Assembly
designated VBH as a “religious and benevolent” organization,
it follows that the General Assembly considered VBH’s
operation of retirement communities for the elderly, its only
purpose, to be both religious and benevolent.
In 1976 when the General Assembly granted VBH tax-exempt
status by designation, its articles of incorporation provided
in part that VBH could:
11
[S]olicit sufficient funds, establish and
maintain an institution where aged, indigent
and infirm men and women may be provided with a
comfortable home gratuitously or upon such
other conditions as may be prescribed by the
management from time to time.
Since 1976 there have been some changes in the language of
various corporate documents. VBH’s current by-laws state that
it “provides quality care in a religious setting” and “seeks
to accomplish its charitable and religious purposes through
four affiliated non-profit corporations” which include The
Glebe. The articles of incorporation of The Glebe state, in
pertinent part, that its purpose “is to provide elderly
persons with housing facilities and services specially
designed to meet their physical, social and psychological
needs, and to promote their health, security, happiness and
usefulness in longer living.” The Glebe’s by-laws provide in
pertinent part:
The objectives for which this Corporation are
operated are: . . . (b) to provide for the care
and comfort of the residents in whatever manner
is required in order to provide a spiritual
environment and proper living conditions; (c)
to provide care either free of charge or for
compensation; . . . Sources of funding shall
include fees from residents, denominational
allocations, church and individual donations,
bequests and funds distributed by Virginia
Baptist Homes Foundation, Inc., a Virginia non-
stock corporation, in accordance with its
stated purposes. Benevolent funds received
from individuals and denominational sources
shall be used to provide benevolent care for
residents with demonstrated financial need.
12
The county cites City of Richmond v. Virginia United
Methodist Homes, 257 Va. 146, 509 S.E.2d 504 (1999) in support
of its argument that a change in purpose in the articles of
incorporation supports a denial of tax-exempt status. In
Richmond, United Methodist Homes had initially cited as a
corporate purpose: to provide “a home or homes for the aged
and infirm and needy persons.” Id. at 150, 509 S.E.2d at 505.
A subsequent change to the articles deleted the reference to
“the aged and infirm and needy persons,” and replaced it with
the term “aging persons.” Id. at 151, 509 S.E.2d at 505. We
held that this new language was a “significant change”
requiring further examination to determine if United Methodist
Homes property still qualified for tax-exempt status. Id. at
158, 509 S.E.2d at 509. We held that these changed
circumstances caused the subject property to no longer qualify
as an “asylum” under the classification statute relied upon by
United Methodist Homes. Id. at 159, 509 S.E.2d at 509;
§ 58.1-3606(5). It is significant that the Richmond case was
a classification case rather than a designation case; because
we noted that upon the same facts presented, “Nothing in this
opinion should be interpreted as restricting Methodist Homes
from obtaining a legislative exemption from local taxes by
13
designation under Code § 58.1-3607.” Id. at 159 n.5., 509
S.E.2d at 509 n.5.
Of course this distinction between exemption by
classification and exemption by designation was a key factor
in the Westminster-Canterbury case. We held that Westminster-
Canterbury did not satisfy the criteria for exemption by
classification irrespective of the established fact that
identical homes operated by Westminster-Canterbury had tax
exemptions by designation. Westminster-Canterbury, 238 Va. at
501, 385 S.E.2d at 566. We stated, “It does not follow,
however, that the General Assembly's action with respect to
the three other Westminster-Canterbury facilities, which are
admittedly identical to the Virginia Beach facility, is of
doubtful validity. Id. The General Assembly does not labor
under the stricture imposed upon tax authorities by the
classification statutes. Id.
In this appeal, as we have done in the past, we
apply the “dominant purpose test” in cases
involving issues of property taxation
exemption. That test, generally speaking, is
whether the property in question promotes the
purpose of the institution seeking the tax
exemption. The test is applied in two
different contexts; one in which the qualifying
status of the property owner is challenged; the
other in which the qualifying status of the
property is challenged.
14
Community Hosp., 259 Va. at 334, 527 S.E.2d at 404. In this
case only the property in question is challenged.
While there may have been some changes made to the
corporate structure of VBH since the designation in order to
limit tort liability, adjust to changes in federal tax law,
and allow for greater flexibility when making capital
improvements, the record, including documentation and
testimony, reflects that its dominant purposes and that of The
Glebe have not changed since the General Assembly granted its
tax-exempt designation. *
Accordingly, the only question the trial court needed to
analyze under Code § 58.1-3650.33(B) was whether The Glebe is
property owned and “used by it exclusively for religious or
benevolent purposes on a nonprofit basis.” The General
Assembly already determined that operation of retirement
communities for the elderly by VBH qualified as a religious
and benevolent purpose. What remained to be decided by the
trial court is whether The Glebe was such a property.
In interpreting Code § 58.1-3650.33, the Court must apply
a rule of strict construction “in accordance with the
provisions of Article X, Section 6(f) of the Constitution of
Virginia.” Code § 58.1-3650(B).
*
The General Assembly may revoke VBH’s tax-exempt
designation pursuant to Code § 58.1-3605.
15
The general rule is that an exemption from
taxation is the exception and provisions
exempting property from taxation must be
strictly construed. The strict construction of
this statute means that entitlement to
exemptions must “appear clearly from the
statutory provisions” relied upon. If there is
any doubt concerning the exemption, the doubt
must be resolved against the party claiming the
exemption.
Community Hosp., 259 Va. at 333, 527 S.E.2d at 403 (quoting
Westminster-Canterbury, 238 Va. at 501, 385 S.E.2d at 565).
The trial court examined evidence of the operation of The
Glebe including: admitting residents regardless of religious
beliefs; having no requirement that staff practice or adhere
to any specific religion; having a chapel but using it for
independent meditation/prayer and not using it for specific
religious services; and offering only religious services from
visiting clergy of various backgrounds. While this rigorous
examination may be necessary in a case involving tax exemption
by classification, it is not the correct inquiry in a case
involving tax exemption by designation.
The plain meaning of Code § 58.1-3650.33(A), strictly
construed, demonstrates that the General Assembly in
designating VBH as a “religious and benevolent organization”
considered operating retirement homes for the elderly to
qualify as a religious purpose. Therefore, the only question
16
to be answered is whether The Glebe, in fact, operates a
retirement community for the elderly on a nonprofit basis.
There is no evidence in this record that The Glebe
provides any service other than operating a retirement
community for the elderly. There is no evidence of The Glebe
performing any other function on the premises of The Glebe
such as the operation of some unrelated commercial venture.
The County argues on appeal that The Glebe does not operate on
a nonprofit basis as required by Code § 58.1-3650. The trial
court made no finding on this issue and the County does not
assign cross-error to the lack of a finding. Consequently,
the matter is not before us. Rule 5:25.
Code § 58.1-3650.33(B) requires that property owned by
VBH be used “exclusively for religious or benevolent
purposes.” (Emphasis added). Giving deference to the
legislative designation, we hold that The Glebe is used
exclusively for a religious purpose. Accordingly, we need not
address whether The Glebe is also used for a benevolent
purpose. The resolution of this case based upon deference to
legislative designation renders it unnecessary to consider any
remaining assignments of error.
III. Conclusion
The trial court erred in holding that VBH and The Glebe
are not exempt from taxation under the provisions of Code
17
§ 58.1-3650.33. We will reverse the judgment of the trial
court and enter final judgment for VBH and The Glebe.
Reversed and final judgment.
JUSTICE KOONTZ, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE HASSELL joins,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. It is undisputed that since 1976
the General Assembly has provided by designation a tax
exemption to Virginia Baptist Homes, Inc. as a religious and
benevolent organization. Code § 58.1-3650.33(A). This
exemption, however, is expressly qualified and limited by the
plain provisions of Code § 58.1-3650.33(B), which provides
that:
“Property owned by the Virginia Baptist Homes, Inc.
and used by it exclusively for religious or
benevolent purposes on a nonprofit basis, as set
forth in subsection A. of this section, is hereby
determined to be exempt from taxation, State and
local, including inheritance taxes.”
(Emphasis added). At issue here is whether a particular
property in Botetourt County, known as “The Glebe,” used for a
“continuing care retirement community” and owned by Virginia
Baptist Homes qualifies for the tax exemption provided in this
subsection. 1
1
Although the retirement community is operated under the
corporate structure of “The Glebe, Inc.,” for purposes of this
appeal, it is not contested that the property is owned by
Virginia Baptist Homes.
18
In my view, the majority incorrectly construes the 1976
legislative designation under Code § 58.1-3650.33(A) that
Virginia Baptist Homes is a “religious and benevolent
organization” entitled to a tax exemption as also serving to
establish “that the General Assembly considered [Virginia
Baptist Homes’] operation of retirement communities for the
elderly, its only purpose, to be both religious and
benevolent.” If this were so, then it would not have been
necessary for the General Assembly to include in Code § 58.1-
3650.33(B) the qualification that the exemption would apply
only to the property of Virginia Baptist Homes “used by it
exclusively for religious or benevolent purposes.” See
Lynchburg Div. of Soc. Servs. v. Cook, 276 Va. 465, 483, 666
S.E.2d 361, 370 (2008) (quoting Hubbard v. Henrico Ltd.
P’ship, 255 Va. 335, 340, 497 S.E.2d 335, 338 (1998))
(“ ‘[E]very part of a statute is presumed to have some effect
and no part will be considered meaningless unless absolutely
necessary.’ ”).
To the contrary, this qualification makes clear that the
General Assembly understood that not every property of a
religious and benevolent organization would necessarily be
used for a religious or benevolent purpose. Therefore, the
majority’s conclusion that “the only question to be answered
19
[in this case] is whether [T]he Glebe, in fact, operates a
retirement community for the elderly on a nonprofit basis”
simply fails to give full effect to the legislative intent of
Code § 58.1-3650.33(B) as plainly written. Virginia
Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. v. Interactive Return Serv.,
271 Va. 304, 309, 626 S.E.2d 436, 438 (2006) (“When the
language in a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply the
statute according to its plain language.”); see also HCA
Health Servs. v. Levin, 260 Va. 215, 220, 530 S.E.2d 417, 419-
20 (2000).
Well-established principles provide the foundation for
the analysis in tax exemption cases. The general policy in
this Commonwealth is to tax all property. The General
Assembly, however, may establish tax exemptions and impose
restrictions or conditions upon the exemptions. When
exemptions are established they are to be strictly construed
so that exemption from taxation is the exception, thus placing
the burden upon the taxpayer to establish that it comes within
the terms of the exemption. Mariner’s Museum v. City of
Newport News, 255 Va. 40, 44, 495 S.E.2d 251, 253 (1998).
Under our present Constitution, which became effective July 1,
1971, the rule of strict construction is applicable to the
exemption in question in this case and under that rule
“ ‘where there is any doubt [that the exemption applies to the
20
particular property known as The Glebe], the doubt is resolved
against the one claiming exemption.’ ” Westminster-Canterbury
v. City of Virginia Beach, 238 Va. 493, 501, 385 S.E.2d 561,
565 (1989) (quoting Golden Skillet Corp. v. Commonwealth, 214
Va. 276, 278, 199 S.E.2d 511, 513 (1973)). In this context,
we have explained that the taxpayer’s “entitlement to
exemption [from taxation] must appear clearly from the
statutory provisions upon which it relies.” Id.
In light of these principles, the issue to be resolved in
this case is whether the property in question is used
“exclusively for religious or benevolent purposes.” There is
no real dispute that the property is operated on a non-profit
basis.
Concluding that the word “benevolent” should receive a
reasonable interpretation to give effect to its accepted
meaning, we have adopted a definition that defines benevolent
to mean: “Philanthropic; humane, having a desire or purpose
to do good to men; intended for conferring of benefits, rather
for gain or profit.” Manassas Lodge No. 1380, Loyal Order of
Moose v. Prince William County, 218 Va. 220, 224, 237 S.E.2d
102, 105 (1977). Clearly, the provision of free or subsidized
housing and care to the elderly would qualify as a benevolent
purpose under Code § 58.1-3650.33(B). However, in the present
case the trial court factually determined that “all residents
21
at [T]he Glebe pay 100 percent of the cost of their care” and
“the property is not used to house the indigent.” The trial
court’s finding in this regard is amply supported by the
record. Indeed, the use of the actuarial requirements to
limit admission to The Glebe effectively demonstrates that
Virginia Baptist Homes does not operate the property to confer
a gratuitous benefit to the needy. Accordingly, The Glebe is
not used for a benevolent purpose so as to promote the
essentially charitable purpose of Virginia Baptist Homes as
stated in its Articles of Incorporation in 1976, which state
the purpose to be: “To solicit sufficient funds, establish
and maintain an institution where aged, indigent and infirm
men and women may be provided with a comfortable home
gratuitously or upon such other conditions as may be
prescribed by the management from time to time.”
The focus of the analysis then turns to the critical
issue whether The Glebe is used for a religious purpose as
contemplated by Code § 58.1-3650.33(B). The trial court
determined that the use of this property did not qualify as
promoting a religious purpose essentially upon finding that
The Glebe is open to all potential residents “regardless of
religious beliefs or lack thereof,” the staff is not required
to practice or adhere to any specific religion, and the chapel
on the property is not used for specific religious services,
22
but rather for independent meditation or prayer. Cf.
Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Soc’y v. Buffalo County
Bd. of Equalization, 500 N.W.2d 520, 524 (Neb. 1993) (holding
that encouraging tenants to participate in religious services
did not qualify an “independent living” apartment complex for
a religious purpose tax exemption). These factual findings
are supported by the record. Moreover, nothing in the record
in this case would support a conclusion that Virginia Baptist
Homes’ exclusive, or even primary, purpose for developing and
using The Glebe was to provide for the spiritual needs of the
prospective residents or to provide housing and care to
deserving individuals in fulfillment of a faith-based mission.
Accordingly, in the final analysis, the issue becomes
whether the provision of housing for the elderly in and of
itself qualifies as a religious purpose as contemplated by
Code § 58.1-3650.33(B) in the particular use of The Glebe by
Virginia Baptist Homes. Even if it is assumed that the
provision of housing for the elderly may be motivated by a
religious purpose, it is self-evident that not all properties
which provide care for the elderly are used for a religious
purpose. 2 In this particular case, as demonstrated above, The
2
See Yakima First Baptist Homes, Inc. v. Gray, 510 P.2d
243, 247 (Wash. 1973)(holding that “care for the aged . . .
cannot be said [to be] a religious purpose within the commonly
accepted definitions of the word ‘religious’”).
23
Glebe is essentially operated as a business enterprise in
which the residents purchase their desired housing and care.
Undoubtedly, The Glebe functions to provide a worthwhile and
beneficial means by which elderly individuals may secure
housing, lifetime care and, indeed, the benefit of the
association with their peers. Nevertheless, it simply cannot
reasonably be said that such involves a religious purpose.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the
trial court finding that The Glebe is not used exclusively for
religious or benevolent purposes and, thus, is not subject to
the tax exemption granted to Virginia Baptist Homes in 1976.
24