{"id":24404,"date":"2013-01-30T13:50:24","date_gmt":"2013-01-30T18:50:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/?p=24404"},"modified":"2013-01-30T15:39:37","modified_gmt":"2013-01-30T20:39:37","slug":"how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-maria","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/timesandseasons.org\/index.php\/2013\/01\/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-maria\/","title":{"rendered":"How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"washington-mormon-temple\"<\/a>(Assuming, of course, that Maria is a full-time ordinance worker at the Washington, D.C., temple.[1. I’m indebted to Kevin Barney<\/a> for his, frankly, transcendent suggestion of pulling the title for this post from The Sound of Music<\/em>. Also, thanks Marc<\/a>, Kent<\/a>, and Kevin for bringing this case to my attention!])<\/p>\n

Did you know that the Church owns an apartment building in Maryland? That it houses temple ordinance workers there? And that the apartment building is, legally, a convent?<\/p>\n

Some Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Church bought the 44-unit apartment complex sometime in the 1970s, after the Washington, D.C., temple was built. The apartment building is about a mile from the temple, and the Church rents apartments to ordinance workers at below-market prices.[2. This makes a lot of sense; from what I can find, Montgomery County, MD, has an above-average cost of living<\/a>; subsidizing rent for senior missionaries makes being in Montgomery County less burdensome for them to serve in an expensive area. What’s more, until very recently, they would have had to bear the full cost of their mission, meaning the added expense could be a significant hardship.]<\/p>\n

In 1980, the Church convinced[3. By “convinced,” I don’t mean any kind of arm-twisting; it looks like the Church appealed a negative determination successfully in the ordinary course of becoming a property-owner.] the Property Tax Assessment Appeals Board to grant it a property tax exemption on the apartment building. The Board believed that the the apartments were used to foster a religious purpose, and the rents were low enough to be considered a subsidy, not unlike the subsidy involved in convents and parsonages.<\/p>\n

In 2008, in the course of a periodic review of exempt properties, the Supervisor of Assessments informed the Church that the apartment complex shouldn’t be exempt from the property tax. This time, on appeal to the Board, the Board agreed that the apartment complex didn’t qualify for an exemption. On appeal, the Circuit Court reversed, and the Supervisor appealed that court’s decision.<\/p>\n

The Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

Like other states, Maryland imposes a property tax. But the property tax has a number of exemptions, including an exemption for certain property owned by religious groups. To qualify for this exemption, the property must be used exclusively for (a) public religious worship, (b) a parsonage or convent, or (c) educational purposes.[4. Cite<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

The Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Church appealed the Board’s decision to the Court of Appeals of Maryland<\/a> (which is the highest state court in Maryland). The court, in Green v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints<\/em><\/a>, spends no time on the apartment complex’s use for public religious worship or educational purposes (and the Church doesn’t push those, either). Clearly, if the apartment complex is going to qualify for a property tax exemption, it must be because it is a parsonage or convent.<\/p>\n

There’s a certain amount of pressure on these definitions. The property tax law requires exemptions to the property tax to be “strictly construed.”[5. Cite<\/a>.] Strict construction<\/em> means that the interpretation of the law “considers only the literal words of a writing.”[6. Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th ed.] So not only does the apartment building have to be a convent, but it has to literally<\/em> be a convent.<\/p>\n

Which is why the parties bring dueling dictionaries to bear on the question. The Supervisor cited five dictionary definitions, from various editions of Webster’s, to support its contention that the apartment complex was not a convent. Meanwhile, the Church cited some of the same definitions, plus an additional Webster’s definition and a 1910 Black’s Law Dictionary definition to support its contention that the apartment complex did qualify.<\/p>\n

In the end, though it recognizes its obligation to strictly construe the statute, the court admits to taking a common-sense approach to religious property tax exemptions to arrive at fair decisions. As such, it rejects the idea that a convent houses unmarried individuals who have taken lifelong vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to a superior. Such a definition, the court says, is in line only with certain religious traditions.<\/p>\n

The court decides, instead, that a religiously-owned housing complex must have several basic qualities to be eligible for the property tax exemption as a convent. It must consist of a community of people who<\/p>\n