Case Law Summaries

City of Long Branch v. Ohel Yaacob Congregation

• Opinion Date: December 15, 2003
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

TAXATION; EXEMPTION—A residence reasonably needed by a house of worship to support its religious purpose may still be exempt from real property taxes even if it does not, itself, qualify under the parsonage exemption.

A synagogue owned a property with two buildings. One building was its house of worship and the other was a two-story residential structure. It had a year-round membership of sixty to eighty families, but had between 400 and 500 families in the summer months. During those summer months, the residence was used to house visiting rabbis and cantors “who perform additional religious services to accommodate the increase in congregation membership during the summer season.” The lower court found, as a matter of fact, that “[a]ppearances by those rabbis [had] the effect of attracting additional summer attendance and financial support for the congregation.” The municipality denied a real estate tax exemption to the residence building because it believed that the building did not qualify under the so-called “parsonage” exemption. The lower court agreed that “the exemption was inapplicable because the subject property was not ‘actually occupied as a parsonage’ by the ‘officiating’ clergymen of the congregation, since the visiting clergymen were not performing functions in a position of authority.” The Tax Court, however, did grant an exemption under a broader provision of the tax law which provides exemptions for “all buildings actually used in the work of associations and corporations organized exclusively for religious purposes… .” This meant that “to be exempt the property need not be used as a ‘parsonage’ and indeed need not be used exclusively for religious purposes.” In applying the test for exemption, “the court must focus on whether the property is predominantly used as an integral part of the operation of a religious organization, and provision of the residence is reasonably necessary for its proper and efficient operation.” An additional factor was that use of the residence during the summer months was not “a mere convenience for the visiting clergy or for the Congregation.” The religious practices of the Congregation prohibited members from driving on the Sabbath and on religious holidays. Therefore, the Court agreed that it was “necessary for the Congregation to supply housing in close proximity to the synagogue in order to obtain the services of the visiting clergy.”

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.