First Congregational Church of De Kalb v. Bd. of Review of De Kalb Cnty.

• Decision Date: 18 April 1912
• Citation: 98 N.E. 275,254 Ill. 220
• Parties: FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DE KALB v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF DE KALB COUNTY.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

254 Ill. 220

98 N.E. 275

FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF DE KALB

v.BOARD OF REVIEW OF DE KALB COUNTY.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 18, 1912.

Certified by Auditor of Public Accounts.

Proceedings before the Board of Review of De Kalb County to determine whether the parsonage of the First Congregational Church of the City of De Kalb was subject to taxation. There was a decision of the board adjudging that the parsonage was subject to taxation, and the Auditor of Public Accounts certified the decision to the Supreme Court for review. Decision approved.

Cliffe & Cliffe, H. W. McEwen, and A. G. Kennedy (McGoorty & Pollock, of counsel), for appellant.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., Edward M. Burst, State's Atty., and Charles E. Woodward, for appellee.

HAND, J.

The board of review of De Kalb county held that the parsonage of the First Congregational Church of the city of De Kalb was subject to taxation, and that decision has been certified to this court for review by the auditor of public accounts under the provisions of the Revenue Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1909, c. 120).

The First Congregational Church of De Kalb owns two adjoining lots in the city of De Kalb, upon one of which is located its church building and upon the other its parsonage, which latter building is occupied by the pastor and his wife and two children as a home. The pastor was called and examined before the board of review as a witness. His testimony was not contradicted, and it appears therefrom the parsonage stands about 30 feet from the church and is two stories high. On the first floor there are a hall and five rooms; that is, a parlor, sitting room, dining room, kitchen, and the pastor's study. On the second floor there are a hall and five rooms intended for sleeping rooms, and bath. The house is fitted up with the ordinary furniture and utensils for housekeeping. In the study the pastor has a desk and books and there prepares his sermons, etc., and he and his family have no other dwelling house or home in the city of De Kalb. The pastor also testified the duties of the pastor were to have entire charge of the spiritual work of the church and to have a share in the counsels and conferences by which the temporal work of the church was managed; that the officers and committees of the church and other organizations of the church meet at the parsonage; that the pastor is there consulted by people in reference to their spiritual welfare and regard to their desire to live a godly life; that the marriage rite is solemnized there and also the rite of baptism; that classes meet there at stated intervals for religious instruction, and sometimes Sunday school is held in the parsonage; that the keys of the church and chapel are kept there, as well as decorations used on stated special occasions; that the utensils of the communion service and the elements used in celebrating the Lord's Supper are kept and prepared in the parsonage; that the religious and educational work of the church is conducted from the parsonage; that parents of the children in the Sunday school, teachers, and others interested in the work of the church and the various societies, consult together and with the pastor at the parsonage; that two-thirds of the six days of the week are spent in the parsonage in religious work; that in the parsonage the pastor devotes his time to study, meditation and prayer, and the preparation of discourses for the congregation; that the pastor's wife is also engaged in religious work in connection with the church, assisting the pastor in the preparation of the sermons, in the church work, and in religious instruction, and shares with the officers of the Ladies' Aid Society, at intervals, in the work of that society; that the parsonage was acquired in order to carry on the work of the church more efficiently, by voluntary contributions from the congregation, and is maintained by like contributions, and the taxes are paid by voluntary contributions raised for the purpose of church work.

Section 3 of article 9 of the Consitution of 1870 authorizes the Legislature to exempt from taxation, by general law, such property as may be used exclusively for religious purposes, and the statute in force at the time of the hearing before the board of review which exempts chruch property from taxes reads as follows: ‘All property used exclusively for religious purposes * * * and not leased or otherwise used with a view to profit.’ And the question to be determined upon this record is: Does the Constitution and the statute exempt the parsonage of appellant from taxation?

Under the act of 1872 (Laws 1871-72, p. 1), the Legislature exempted from taxation all church property autually and exclusively used for ‘public worship.’ That statute was held not broad enough to exempt from taxation a building which stood upon a lot which was separated from the church property by a 16-foot alley, and which was used by the church organization as a place in which to hold Sunday school and for the social purposes of the church and in which the janitor of the church had a room, on the ground that the use to which the building was put was not ‘public worship.’ In re Walker, 200 Ill. 566, 66 N. E. 144. The Legislature amended the statute thereafter so that it exempted from taxation ‘all church property actually and exclusively used for public worship and all parsonages or residences actually and exclusively used by persons devoting their entire time to church work, when the said buildings and the land on which said buildings are located (said land to be of reasonable size for the location of said buildings) are owned by the congregation or the church authorities and not used for pecuniary profit.’ This statute was held unconstitutional in People v. First Congregational Church, 232 Ill. 158, 83 N. E. 536, in so far as it attempted to exempt from taxation parsonages, and the present statute was passed, which follows substantially the language of the Constitution.

[1][2] In determining whether the parsonage of the appellant is exempt from taxation under the statute now in force, it must be borne in mind that all property in this state is subject to taxation unless it is relieved from taxation by the Constitution and the statutes which are passed in accordance with the Constitution, and that in determining the question whether property is exempt from taxation all statutes must be strictly construed and resolved against the exemption if there is any doubt upon the subject; that is, the exemption is not to be made by judicial construction, and one claiming benefit under the statute is required to show clearly that the property is exempt within the contemplation of the law. Montgomery v. Wyman, 130 Ill. 17, 22 N. E. 845;People v. Peoria Mercantile Library Ass'n, 157 Ill. 369, 41 N. E. 557;People v. Watseka Camp Meeting Ass'n, 160 Ill. 576, 43 N. E. 716;Bloomington Cemetery Ass'n v. People, 170 Ill. 377, 48 N. E. 905;Sanitary District of Chicago v. Martin, 173 Ill. 243, 50 N. E. 201,64 Am. St. Rep. 110;State Council of Catholic Knights v. Board of Review, 198 Ill. 441, 64 N. E. 1104;People v. Deutsche Gemeinde, 249 Ill. 132, 94 N. E. 162.

[3] And in determining whether property falls within the terms of the exemption, whether it be constitutional or statutory, it is the primary use to which the property is put which must be considered and not its secondary use. People v. First Congregational Church, supra; County of Ramsey v. Church of Good Shepherd, 45 Minn. 229, 47 N. W. 783. And if the property is devoted, in a primary sense, to a religious purpose, the fact that it is incidentally used for secular purposes will not destroy the exemption, or if the primary use of the property is secular, the fact that a portion of it is incidentally used for a religious purpose will not make it exempt from taxation. People v. First Congregational Church, supra; County of Ramsey v. Church of Good Shepherd, supra.

[4] We think it obvious, therefore, that all would understand and readily concede that a church is a building which in its primary sense is used for a religious purpose; that is, such use is its principal and general use, and that its occasional use as a lecture room or for other similar use would not destroy the exemption. On the contrary, we think it is equally well understood by all, as the very name signifies, that the primary use of a parsonage is as a home for the pastor and his family; that is, that such use is its principal and general use, and that the fact that some parts of the parsonage are used for purposes connected with the pastor's work or the work of the church would not make it a building used exclusively for religious purposes and exempt it from taxation.

[5] We think it clear, therefore, that, as was held in People v. First Congregational Church, supra, the primary purpose for which the parsonage in question was acquired and possessedby the appellant is not religious, but is secular, and that it is not exempt from taxation, and that the amendment of the statute after that case was decided did not change the law in this state so as to exempt the parsonage of the appellant from taxation. This case, in principle, differs in no way from that case, except here we have a little more elaboration, and the evidence points out perhaps more fully the incidental uses of this parsonage than was shown in that case. There is, however, no evidence found in this record which shows that the primary use of the parsonage in this case is other than that of a home provided by the church for the pastor and his family. We think therefore it is clear that the parsonage of the appellant does not fall within the terms of the present statute which exempt church property which is used exclusively for religious purposes. While the statute is undoubtedly a valid enactment in so far as it applies to church property exclusively used for religious purposes and exempts such property from taxation, it does...