Watchtower Bible and Tract Soc. of New York, Inc. v. Lewisohn

• Decision Date: 11 July 1974
• Citation: 358 N.Y.S.2d 757,315 N.E.2d 801,35 N.Y.2d 92
• Parties: , 315 N.E.2d 801 In the Matter of WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., Respondent, v. Richard LEWISOHN, as Finance Administrator of the City of New York, et al., Appellants, Attorney-General of the State of New York, Intervenor-Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 757

358 N.Y.S.2d 757

35 N.Y.2d 92, 315 N.E.2d 801

In the Matter of WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC., Respondent, v. Richard LEWISOHN, as Finance Administrator of the City of New York, et al., Appellants, Attorney-General of the State of New York, Intervenor-Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 11, 1974.

Adrian P. Burke, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Edith I. Spivack, Stanley Buchsbaum and Russell D. Scott, New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

George H. Hartman, Charles Koozman and Emory Gardiner, New York City, for respondent.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Samuel A. Hirshowitz, Julius Greenfield, Bernard Toomin and Sharon Cuff Slater, New York City, of

counsel), in his statutory capacity under section 71 of the Executive Law and CPLR 1012 (subd. b), for intervenor-respondent.

JONES, Judge.

The lower courts have directed the Finance Administrator and the Tax Commission of the City of New York to remove certain properties of Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., from the city tax rolls. We now affirm.

The issue arises as to the interpretation and scope of new section 421 of the Real Property Tax Law ¹ and its counterpart, Local Law No. 46 of the New York City Local Laws of 1971. The former section granted authority to local municipalities to terminate the tax exemption previously enjoyed by the properties of certain not-for-profit organizations. The later law, phrased in substantially identical terminology, was New York City's exercise of the authority so conferred.

The statutory provisions are phrased in the explicit conjunctive. In the context of this case to be subject to loss of exemption and thus to taxation, the real property in question must be owned by a corporation or association:

(1) 'which Is not organized or conducted exclusively for religious * * * purposes,

'but'

(2) 'which Is organized or conducted exclusively * * * for bible, tract, missionary * * * purposes, and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon (such purpose).' (Emphasis and editorial format added.)

Thus, in our view, to succeed in establishing the taxable status of real property owned by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., under these provisions the taxing authority must prove not only that the corporate owner Is organized exclusively for bible and tract purposes, but as well that it is Not organized or conducted exclusively for religious purposes. It is on the latter branch of this requirement of proof that we conclude the taxing authorities have failed in this instance.

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., is the governing body of the religious group known as Jehovah's Witnesses. The particular words used in its corporate name do not foreclose inquiry beyond them as to the purposes for which the society was organized and is conducted. it was organized as a membership corporation for religious purposes in 1909. ² It is the ecclesiastical governing body of a recognized religious denomination with its own beliefs and form of organization. (People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. v. Haring, 8 N.Y.2d 350, 207 N.Y.S.2d 673, 170 N.E.2d 677; People v. Barber, 289 N.Y. 378, 46 N.E.2d 329; Dickinson v. United States, 346 U.S. 389, 74 S.Ct. 152, 98 L.Ed. 132; Fowler v. Rhode Island, 345 U.S. 67, 73 S.Ct. 526, 97 L.Ed. 828; Board of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292; Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 63 S.Ct. 667, 87 L.Ed. 873; United States v. Balogh, 2 Cir., 157 F.2d 939; United States ex rel. Hull v. Stalter, 7 Cir., 151 F.2d 633; Borchert v. City of Ranger, D.C. 42 F.Supp. 577; Tucker v. Randall, 18 N.J.Misc. 675, 15 A.2d 324.)

This religious organization embraces more than one and a half million ministers and missionary evangelists in more than 200 lands throughout the world. Congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses are established locally under the society's supervision with an assignment of missionary territory in which the members of the congregation carry on their religious preaching and teaching activities. Each religious congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses has a supervising minister and assistants appointed by the society. Administration of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses stems from the governing body at the international headquarters in Brooklyn, New York. The doctrines and beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are first promulgated by this governing body and then published either in The Watchtower or one of the other official publications of the society.

The religious activity of Jehovah's Witnesses consists in major part of house-to-house preaching, an integral part of which is the attendant distribution of religious literature, the bible and religious books, magazines and booklets, all produced and published by the society.

The great weight of judicial authority has uniformly held that the preaching activity of Jehovah's Witnesses from house to house is done as ministers of the gospel and it is held that it is religious preaching (see, e.g., People v. Barber, 289 N.Y. 378, 46 N.E.2d 329, Supra; Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573, 64 S.Ct. 717, 88 L.Ed. 938; Murdock v. Pennsylvania, Supra; City of Anchorage v. Berry, D.C., 145 F.Supp. 868, 16 Alaska 296; Donley v. City of Colorado Springs, D.C., 40 F.Supp. 15; Florida ex rel. Hough v. Woodruff, 147 Fla. 299, 2 So.2d 577; State ex rel. Wilson v. Russell, 146 Fla. 539, 1 So.2d 569; Thomas v. City of Atlanta, 59 Ga.App. 520, 1 S.E.2d 598; State v. Mead, 230 Iowa 1217, 300 N.W. 523; City of Shreveport v. Teague, 200 La. 679, 8 So.2d 640; State ex rel. Semansky v. Stark, 196 La. 307, 199 So. 129; Commonwealth v. Akmakjian, 316 Mass. 97, 55 N.E.2d 6; Commonwealth v. Anderson, 308 Mass. 370, 32 N.E.2d 684; State v. Richardson, 92 N.H. 178, 27 A.2d 94; City of Cincinnati v. Mosier, 61 Ohio App. 81, 22 N.E.2d 418; City of Darlington v. Thompson, 234 S.C. 89, 106 S.E.2d 918; State v. Meredith, 197 S.C. 351, 15 S.E.2d 678.)

We accordingly conclude that the respondent society is organized and conducted exclusively for religious purposes within the meaning of the statute and therefore is not subject to taxation by the City of New York under Local Law No. 46 of 1971. By contrast we recently held in Matter of Association of Bar of City of N.Y. v. Lewisohn, 34 N.Y.2d 143, 356 N.Y.S.2d 555, 313 N.E.2d 30, that the taxing authority met both requirements of proof to establish taxable status, i.e., that neither of the corporate property owners there was organized or conducted exclusively for charitable or educational purposes and that one was a bar association and the other a scientific society. Accordingly the properties of each became taxable under Local Law No. 46.

In this view of the provisions of section 421 and Local Law No. 46 we do not reach the issue of the constitutionality of those provisions as applied to this society were they to be interpreted otherwise.

It remains only to note that we do not accept appellants' argument that since portions of the properties of this corporate owner are concededly occupied by...