Board of Assessors of New Braintree v. Pioneer Valley Academy, Inc.

• Decision Date: 09 April 1969
• Citation: 246 N.E.2d 792,355 Mass. 610
• Parties: BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF NEW BRAINTREE v. PIONEER VALLEY ACADEMY, INC. (and a companion case).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

Page 792

246 N.E.2d 792

355 Mass. 610

BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF NEW BRAINTREE v. PIONEER VALLEY ACADEMY, INC. (and a companion case).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued March 7, 1969.

Decided April 9, 1969.

Francis J. Cranston, Town Counsel, Worcester, for Board of Assessors of New Braintree.

Morton C. Jaquith, Worcester (Melvin R. Perlman, Westwood, with him), for Pioneer Valley Academy, Inc.

Before WILKINS, C.J., and SPALDING, WHITTEMORE, CUTTER and KIRK, JJ. CUTTER, Justice.

These are appeals from decisions of the Appellate Tax Board with respect to the exemption of Pioneer Valley Academy, Inc. (Pioneer) from real estate taxes assessed as of January 1, in the years 1966 and 1967, upon part of Pioneer's land in New Braintree. The town concedes that 386 of 624 acres owned by Pioneer on January 1, 1966, are exempt and that the same land was exempt in 1967. It taxed the remainder of Pioneer's land. By January 1, 1967, Pioneer had acquired three new parcels (118 acres in all). The town, in addition to the land taxed in 1966, taxed these 118 acres and also one house, valued at $18,000, as to which an abatement (as a parsonage) had been granted in 1966. An application for abatement was made in each year. The assessors denied each application (except for the 1966 abatement on the parsonage).

A petition was filed with the Appellate Tax Board for each year. The board, in the 1966 case, rendered a decision for Pioneer and granted exemption and abatements with respect to all the real estate taxed in 1966. In the 1967 case the board decided for the town on the ground that the board lacked jurisdiction. In the 1966 case the board was not asked by either party to file, and did not file, any findings of fact and report as provided in G.L. c. 58A, § 13, as amended through St.1968, c. 120, §§ 2--4. ¹ In the 1967 case, the board at Pioneer's request filed findings and a report. The town has appealed to this court in the 1966 case. Pioneer has appealed in the 1967 case.

1. Pioneer is a nonprofit corporation formed in 1965 under G.L. c. 180 to conduct a nonprofit school for boys and girls under the direction and discipline of the Seventhday Adentist Church. Officers of the Southern New England Conference Association (the Conference) of that church or of a college conducted by members of that faith were the incorporators and became trustees. Pioneer's academy was built on land purchased by the Conference and conveyed by it to Pioneer. Part of this land, which the town concedes to be exempt from taxation, contained dormitories, a cafeteria, and power and water utilities for the school. Ten lots (lots 2 to 11), which the town did tax, included land on which stood faculty houses, land which contained the institution's water supply, land purchased for the protection of an auxiliary water supply, and two tracts of improved farm land.

The town, on the merits, makes its principal attack on the claim of exemption for the rent-free faculty houses which by photographs in evidence are shown to be eighteen attractive, but not elaborate, small houses of good construction, each on a substantial lot of land and with an attached garage. The town's attitude (as expressed in its denial of exemption for 1966) is that while Pioneer's 'purposes are admirable and * * * (its) school of the highest calibre the fact that * * * (it) require(s) a faculty of such a large number to live in the campus to handle the number of students * * * is unreasonable' and that an exemption in the amount claimed is 'a hardship to the town financially.' ²

A 1967 catalog of Pioneer in evidence shows that the school offers college preparatory and general courses. Each student, as a part of an educational policy of 'training * * * students along work lines,' is required to earn part of his expenses and is credited on his school account a specified amount for each hour of labor in the laundry, cafeteria, or dormitories, in maintenance or janitorial service, on the school farm, or in a furniture mill owned by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.

Because Pioneer is a 'religious * * * character-building school' there is emphasis on a 'close relationship * * * between teacher and students' and operations are on a 'school family plan, where the faculty takes part in social and recreational activities with the students' in addition to supervisory and teaching work. Supervision goes on also after supper and on weekends. Meetings for all teachers and administrative employees are held in the evenings. 'All day-to-day employment and operations of * * * (Pioneer) are conducted by * * * people who live * * * on the campus.' Members of the faculty are called in the evening to meet emergencies.

Pioneer considers 'every person employed * * * (it) a faculty member.' Each 'teacher in the classroom * * * is charged with * * * training * * * the head * * *. Other individuals sometimes assist them, (and) the students with their lessons but they are particularly involved with * * * training * * * the working abilities of the students and all of them * * * (assist) with the religious education, directly or indirectly.' At the time of the hearing before the board there were 223 students in the school with the equivalent of about fifteen full-time teachers, not including those in an elementary school ³ run by the Conference for fifteen aculty children.

The faculty houses, located about 1,000--1,500 feet from the boys' dormitory, were built as 'a strong incentive for attracting well-qualified teachers.' Teachers 'are required to live in the (school) housing.' Administrative personnel also live on the school premises. This is convenient and promotes a close relationship between faculty and students.

The town relies largely on President & Trustees of Williams College v. Assessors of Williamstown, 167 Mass. 505, 509, 46 N.E. 394, 395, in which it was held that houses owned by Williams College and rented to professors were not occupied by the college for college purposes. This court said that 'the occupants were each in the sole occupation of the premises * * * for strictly private purposes' with control in them, not the college. The case, however, was treated as 'plainly distinguishable' in South Lancaster Academy v. Inhabitants of Town of Lancaster, 242 Mass. 553, 556--560, 136 N.E. 626, which also involved a Seventh-day Adventist educational institution at which the students were required to work. A cottage was occupied in part by the principal as his office and dwelling, rent free, except for a deduction from the principal's salary which 'did not more than pay for heating and lighting.' This cottage was held to be exempt from taxation, because 'it could * * * have been found that the occupation * * * was essential to the orderly and efficient management of the school.' In the present case, the faculty housing project was more elaborate. Nevertheless, the Appellate Tax Board reasonably could find that the faculty housing was essential to the success of a well planned scheme of secondary education in which the talents of all Pioneer's teachers and administrative workers were being employed together in the comprehensive education of the students.

The assistance to the promotion of Pioneer's purposes is 'direct and immediate' and not merely 'consequential.' Emerson v. Trustees of Milton Academy, 185 Mass. 414, 415, 70 N.E. 442. See Trustees of Phillips Academy v. Inhabitants of Andover, 175 Mass. 118, 123--126, 55 N.E. 841, 48 L.R.A. 550, where the Williamstown case was said to stand 'on its own facts.' See President & Fellows of Harvard College v. Assessors of Cambridge, 175 Mass. 145, 148--149, 55 N.E. 844, 48 L.R.A. 547. Thus the Williamstown case, the authority of which is much narrowed by the decisions just cited, does not preclude exemption on the facts before us. See Assessors of Boston v. Garland School of Home Making, 296 Mass. 378, 391, 6 N.E.2d 374. The board could conclude that the housing project was actively appropriated 'to the immediate uses of' the educational purposes for which Pioneer was organized and was occupied in a manner which contributed 'immediately' to the accomplishment of those purposes. See Babcock v. Leopold Morse Home for Infirm Hebrews & Orphange, 225 Mass. 418, 421--422, 114 N.E. 712. Two of the requests for rulings sought by the town were properly denied, for they did not adequately reflect the principles stated in the cases just cited.

The town contends that the apartment, used (see fn. 3, supra) by the unmarried elementary school teacher, who is paid by the Conference, is not occupied by Pioneer for its own educational purposes. The evidence shows that Pioneer (see fn. 4, infra) has been and is heavily subsidized by the Conference (both by capital gifts and with donations to meet large operating deficits) in aid of education of a type in which the Conference has a strong interest. In affording the teacher a dwelling, however, Pioneer not only achieves an educational end desired by the Conference but also serves directly its own purposes, for it obtains the services of an elementary school teacher for children of faculty members. Unlike the situation discussed in Worcester Masonic Charity & Educ. Ass'n v. Assessors of Worcester, 326 Mass. 409, 411--412, 94 N.E.2d 763, the teacher's occupation of the apartment may be viewed as carried on by her primarily for the purposes of Pioneer the owner, and only indirectly for the purposes of her employer, the Conference.

The town somewhat vaguely argues that Pioneer carries out its educational purposes in too elaborate fashion. Even assuming this argument to have any significant basis, we think that Pioneer cannot be said to have acted in this respect beyond the range of sound educational discretion. Any decision about how liberal a provision should be made for Pioneer's educational venture, and about the form which that provision should take, must be made by...