Hartford Hospital v. Board of Tax Review of City of Hartford

• Decision Date: 08 April 1969
• Citation: 256 A.2d 234,158 Conn. 138
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: HARTFORD HOSPITAL v. BOARD OF TAX REVIEW OF the CITY OF HARTFORD.

Page 234

256 A.2d 234

158 Conn. 138

HARTFORD HOSPITAL v. BOARD OF TAX REVIEW OF the CITY OF HARTFORD.

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

April 8, 1969.

David Schwartz, Hartford, with whom was Arthur L. Shipman, Jr., Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).

Richard M. Cosgrove, Deputy Corp. Counsel, for appellee (defendant).

Before KING, C.J., and ALCORN, HOUSE, THIM and RYAN, JJ.

RYAN, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff, a hospital corporation appealed from the Hartford board of tax review to the Court of Common Pleas, claiming that certain property acquired by it in 1964 is exempt from taxation. From a judgment rendered following the sustaining by the trial court of the defendant's plea in abatement, the plaintiff has appealed to this court.

Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the trial court found the following facts: The plaintiff is a corporation without capital stock which maintains and conducts a hospital. In August, 1964, the plaintiff acquired the property known as 268-270 Washington Street in Hartford. On or before July 1, 1965, the plaintiff filed a property tax report in the office of the tax assessor of the city of Hartford covering this piece of property. The department of assessment made a determination that the property was not exempt from the tax list of July 1, 1965, and placed the property on the taxable list at a valuation of $73,600. From this action, the plaintiff appealed to the board of tax review in December, 1965. This appeal was denied, and the plaintiff took no appeal to the Court of Common Pleas from this decision. The plaintiff filed no property tax report covering the subject property subsequent to the one filed on or before July 1, 1965. The tax assessor placed the property in question on the tax list of July 1, 1966, at a valuation of $73,600. The plaintiff appealed from this action to the board of tax review in December, 1966. The board entered a notation in a space provided therefor at the foot of the petition for appeal showing the action of the board of tax review as 'no change.' On December 30, 1966, the board of tax review sent a notice of action to the plaintiff stating that 'the Board of Tax Review have considered your appeal' and 'voted that we find no error in the action of the City Assessor.' The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas within two months of this action of the board of tax review, claiming that it was aggrieved by the action of the board because the property is sued exclusively for hospital purposes and should have been exemption from taxation. The defendant pleaded in abatement that the court did not have jurisdiction of the action on the ground that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the statutory conditions essential to a valid appeal to the board of tax review and from that board to the Court of Common Pleas, because it failed to apply for a tax exemption for the property in question on the tax list of July 1, 1966. The trial court sustained the defendant's plea in abatement and rendered judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal.

The plaintiff assigns error in several conclusions of the trial court, on the ground that they are unsupported by the finding of subordinate facts, including the following: (1) The department of assessment made no determination as to the exemption regarding the subject property for the tax list of July 1, 1966. (2) The plaintiff was not aggrieved by any action of the department of assessment regarding tax exemption on the list of July 1, 1966. (3) The board of tax review of the city of Hartford and the Court of Common Pleas lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal regarding tax exemption on the tax list of July 1, 1966. (4) The applicable sections of the General Statutes governing tax exemptions are §§ 12-81, 12-87, 12-88 and 12-89. (5) The plaintiff did not satisfy all of the requirements imposed on it by the applicable sections of the General Statutes. (6) The defendant was not estopped from alleging lack of jurisdiction. (7) Section 12-118 of the General Statutes does not give the Court of Common Pleas jurisdiction of the plaintiff's appeal from the board of tax review. The plaintiff also assigns error in the overruling of its claims of law by the trial court.

The plaintiff claims a property tax exemption for the Washington Street property, which it acquired in August, 1964, pursuant to § 12-81(16) of the General Statutes. ¹ The defendant concedes that the plaintiff hospital meets the requirements of subsection (a) of the statute. Subsection (b) required that, in order to qualify property for tax exemption, a statement on forms prepared by the tax commissioner must be filed with the city assessor in 1963 and quadrennially thereafter. ² The exemption provided by § 12-81(16) is limited by § 12-88, to which it is subject and which provides in part: 'The real property belonging to, or held in trust for, any such organization, not used exclusively for carrying out one or more of such purposes (under which exemption is claimed) but leased, rented or otherwise used for other purposes, shall not be exempt.' See Arnold College for Hygiene & Physical Education v. Town of Milford, 144 Conn. 206, 209, 128 A.2d 537; New Canaan Country School, Inc. v. Town of New Canaan, 138 Conn. 347, 350, 84 A.2d 691, 693. The trial court concluded that the applicable statutes governing tax exemptions for hospitals are §§ 12-81, 12-87, 12-88 and 12-89. In their briefs, both parties agree that § 12-87 ³ is, by its terms, not applicable to § 12-81(16). On the other hand, both parties claim that the provisions of § 12-89 ⁴ apply to § 12-81(16) and to the instant case. In fact, neither § 12-87 nor § 12-89 applies to the provision of the statutes exempting hospitals from taxation. This becomes quite clear upon an examination of the legislative history of these statutes.

Prior to 1925, the property tax exemption statute (Rev.1918, § 1160, the predecessor of General Statutes § 12-81) provided simply that certain classes of property would be exempt from the property tax levy. In 1925, the exemption statute was amended to provide that the real estate of 'scientific, educational, literary or benevolent institutions, and of agricultural societies' would not be exempt from the property tax 'for any year in which it shall omit to file with the assessors * * * a list and statement concerning value, purpose, income and expenditures of its property upon blanks furnished by the tax commissioner'. Public Acts 1925, c. 245 § 1(4)(b). At that time, no such modification was made in the statute dealing with the exemption of property owned by hospitals. In 1927, the legislature amended the statute to require the filing of annual statements with the local board of assessors and extended the filing requirement to religious organizations holding property for cemetery purposes. Public Acts 1927, c. 319 § 1(7)(b), § 1(9)(c). The 1927 legislature also enacted the predecessor of General Statutes § 12-89, which empowered the board of assessors to examine the tax exempt statements of 'scientific, educational, literary, historical, charitable, agricultural and cemetery organizations' and to determine whether the requested exemption was warranted. It also provided for an appeal to the board of tax review and then to the Superior Court from the action of the assessors in denying an exemption to such an organization. Public Acts 1927, c. 319 § 3. In 1929, the annual filing requirement was modified to require the quadrennial filing of tax exemption statements by such organizations commencing in 1929. Public Acts 1929, c. 24 § 1(7)(b), § 1(9)(c). At the same time the legislature enacted the predecessor of General Statutes § 12-87, which provided that, if any scientific, educational, literary, historical, charitable, agricultural or cemetery organization secured property, which it claimed to be exempt, during any year in which a statement was not required, then such a statement would have to be filed in order for the property to be exempt on the tax list of the next succeeding year. Public Acts 1929, c. 24 § 2.

There has been no significant change in the provisions of General Statutes § 12-87 since 1929, nor has there been any such change in the provisions of § 12-89 since 1927. The predecessors of both of these statutes applied only to scientific, educational, literary, historical, charitable, agricultural and cemetery organizations. Their provisions were never made applicable to § 12-81(16).

In the instant case, the plaintiff, prior to July 1, 1965, filed a report claiming exemption for the subject property. The tax assessor denied the exemption and placed the property on the 1965 tax list. The plaintiff's appeal to the board of tax review was denied, but it took no appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. The plaintiff filed no claim for exemption on the tax list of 1966 but nevertheless takes the position that because it filed a property report before July 1, 1965, there was nothing further for it to do until 1967 and that by virtue of the 1965 filing, it was entitled to the benefits of any exemption which it might claim under the statute. The plaintiff urges that, since the defendant did not allege that the plaintiff failed to file the required statement in 1963, it cannot be asserted that the plaintiff has failed to comply with the requirements of § 12-81(16). This statute makes no provision for filing additional property reports during the time prescribed by law for the filing of assessment lists next succeeding the acquisition of property not theretofore made exempt in the manner required for organizations claiming exemption under subdivisions (7), (10) and (11) of § 12-81.

Hospital corporations are, however, subject to other applicable provisions of chapter 203 (assessment of property tax) of the General Statutes. Section 12-64 of the General Statutes provides in pertinent part as follows: 'All the following-mentioned property, not exempted, shall be set...