Mordecai F. Ham Evangelistic Ass'n v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 08 June 1945 |
| Citation | 189 S.W.2d 524,300 Ky. 402 |
| Parties | MORDECAI F. HAM EVANGELISTIC ASS'N v. MATTHEWS, Sheriff, et al. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied Oct. 12, 1945.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Chancery Branch, First Division; Lawrence F. Speckman, Judge.
Suit by Mordecai F. Ham Evangelistic Association against J. Hunter Matthews, sheriff, and others to enjoin the assessment and collection of taxes on property owned by plaintiff. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Thomas C. Fisher, of Louisville, for appellants.
Lawrence S. Grauman, of Louisville, for appellee.
STANLEY Commissioner.
The question is one of tax exemption. The answer is to be found in the intent and meaning of the term 'religious society' as used in Section 170 of the Constitution of Kentucky, which exempts 'all parsonages or residences owned by any religious society, and occupied as a home, and for no other purpose, by the minister of any religion, with not exceeding one-half acre of ground in towns and cities and two acres of ground in the country appurtenant thereto.'
The appellant, Mordecai F. Ham Evangelistic Association, was organized in 1936 under the provisions of Section 879 et seq., Kentucky Statutes (now KRS 273.020 et seq.), which cover the incorporation of religious, charitable and educational institutions without capital stock or private pecuniary profit. It holds title to residence property in Louisville of the value of about $15,000, which the Reverend Mordecai F. Ham occupies as a home. The corporation brought this suit against the assessing and tax-collecting officers of the state and county to enjoin the assessment and collection of taxes on this property.
The Reverend Mr. Ham has been engaged in conducting Christian evangelistic services throughout the country for forty years and more, and in recent years over the radio, independent of any religious denomination, or as extra-demoninational. It appears that he is an ordained minister and a member of a local church, but the denomination is not disclosed. All receipts of money, which come from voluntary contributions are credited to the account of the Association. Out of the account are paid the expenses of operation, including salaries of associates and helpers in the evangelistic field the rent or cost of temporary tabernacles or tents, the cost of radiocasting, and the publication and distribution of religious tracts from the residence, in which is located also auxiliary radio broadcasting equipment. Financial aid is given to young men for theological education. No definite salary or fixed compensation is paid Dr. Ham, but all of his personal and living expenses and apparently whatever money he desires are paid out of the funds of the Association. He draws upon the account as he pleases without limitation of any kind, save that the checks are also signed by the treasurer of the corporation, who it is said handles all the funds. Insurance is carried on his life for the benefit of the Association. No audit or accounting of funds has ever been made for any one. The incorporators of the plaintiff Association were the Reverend Ham and his wife. They with two others are the officers and directors, the board being self-perpetuating. The usual formalities of meeting of directors and keeping of corporate records seem not to be observed. There are no members of the Association unless, as claimed by the appellant, the congregations and radio audiences and the numerous persons who make contributions are to be regarded as members.
The Articles of incorporation declare that the purpose of the corporation is 'the promotion of the work of Christian evangelization, especially to promote the evangelistic work of Reverend M. F. Ham, but it shall have authority to promote the evangelistic work of any other evangelist whose work the Association may approve.'
Democracy is the outgrowth of Christianity. Although the constitutional decree of freedom of religion and worship embraces any faith Compton v. Moore, 156 Ky. 544, 161 S.W. 540, 542, ours is a Christian nation. United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 51 S.Ct. 570, 575, 75 L.Ed. 1302. It is of interest to note that the preamble of the Constitution of Kentucky, like that of most every other state, contains or consists of a prayer of gratitude and invocation for our political and civil blessings. Notwithstanding all this, and the immeasurable benefit of religion to the structure of society, even in the temporal way, there is no inherent immunity in the church from liability for the support of the government. Indeed, that obligation finds sanction in the biblical injunction that every citizen should, 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,' the statement having special reference to the payment of taxes. Immunity or exemption must come from an express waiver of the sovereign. In Kentucky the waiver relating to charitable institutions, as it is educational, is very broad and liberal, but in respect to the church it is narrow and strict, as recently pointed out in City of Louisville v. Presbyterian Orphans Home Society, 299 Ky. 566, 186 S.W.2d 194. The waiver relating to churches or religious societies is limited to 'places actually used for religious worship, with the grounds attached thereto and used and appurtenant to the house of worship,' limited as to area, and 'all parsonages or residences owned by any religious society, and occupied as a home, and for no other purpose, by the minister of any religion,' also limited as to area. Section 170, Kentucky Constitution.
It is a rule of general application that provisions for exemption from payment of taxes will be strictly construed, and all doubts and implications resolved against it. Gray v. Methodist Episcopal Church, South, Widows & Orphans Home, 272 Ky. 646, 114 S.W.2d 1141. A claim to exemption must be clearly and positively established by proof of facts essential to bringing the claimant within the contemplation of the Constitution. Kesselring v. Bonnycastle Club, 299 Ky. 585, 186 S.W.2d 402, 403. And, as said in Commonwealth v. Trustees of Hamilton College, 125 Ky. 329, 101 S.W. 405, 406, 'the spirit in which this exemption from the burdens of taxation is allowed cannot be trifled with or evaded by any scheme or device that might defeat the purpose of the exemption.'
It is of interest, if not of pertinence, that the debate in the Constitutional Convention in relation to exemption from taxation was vigorous and extended. There was considerable support for the proposition that all church property should be taxed, and many participants in the discussion pointed to the experiences in ancient days of the evils of large tax-free accumulations of property by the church or religious societies. The clause relating to the exemption of ministers' homes was adopted by the narrow margin of one vote as an amendment to the report of the Committee on Revenue, the original including only places actually used for worship. Vol. II, pp. 2560, 2720, Debates of the Constitutional Convention of 1890.
It is ordinarily said that the primary use to which the property is put rather than its ownership is what determines whether it is tax exempt, Kesselring v. Bonnycastle Club, Inc., supra although the character of the owner always sheds an important side light on the nature of the use. Kemp v. Pillar of Fire, 94 Colo. 41, 27 P.2d 1036. In this case both the factors of ownership and use are of controlling importance or must be found to actually exist in order to declare exemption. This property meets the test of occupancy as the residence of a minister of the gospel. But that alone is not sufficient. The disputed question is the character of the owner. That was the decisive factor also in Commonwealth v. First Christian Church, 169 Ky. 410, 183 S.W. 943, Ann.Cas.1918B, 525,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dunn v. Solomon Found.
...synonymous with an institution, is not necessarily the same thing, as we will see. Brother Ham wanted his home exempted as a parsonage. Id. at 525. Ham was not affiliated with any denomination. He was a Christian evangelist who traveled to spread the Gospel. He set up a corporation with the......