Court Issues Ruling in the 3-ABN Case

[Gregory Matthews]

On March 31, 2008, the Appellate court for the 5th District of Illinois delivered a ruling that is of interest to people who follow religious liberty issues. To directly reference this ruling see:

Three Angels Broadcasting (Plaintiff/Appellant) v. The Department of Revenue (Defendant/Appellee), case # 5-05-0724.

Brief Summary of the Background: On January 28, 2004, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the majority of the 3-ABN property failed to qualify for exemption from school district taxes. It limited the exempted property to two pastoral offices. One, and there were other reasons, was that ALJ ruled that the property was not operated exclusively without profit.

This ruling of the ALJ was adopted by the Department of Revenue on April 7, 2004.

On May 11, 2004 3-ABN requested the Circuit Court of Franklin County to review the ruling. On August 20, 2004 this court denied the motion to dismiss.

3-ABN then filed for review on March 8, 2005 with the Circuit Court. This was denied on November 29, 2005.

On December 21, 2005 3-ABN appealed to the Appellate Court, which issued its ruling

on March 31, 2008.

Appellate Court Ruling:

1) The court clearly ruled that it must accept 3-ABNs characterization of its programming as religious instruction. It clearly stated that it did not have the authority to determine the religiosity of 3-ABNs programs. The court could only determine the other issues in this case after it had accepted 3-ABNs characterization of its programs.

While some might characterize this as a victory for religious liberty it is not. That dictum is well established in law. It is grounded in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is established in case law and it required before the court could deal with the other issues.

2) While the Court considered the several issues that 3-ABN raised in its appeal, the major part of its ruling was based upon one issue only. Under Illinois law and its Constitution, property used for religious use, even if used exclusively for religious use, only qualifies for exemption if that property is NOT used for profit. It does not matter whether the profit inures to an individual or to the organization itself. If it is used for profit, it does not qualify for exemption.

3) The Court found that 3-ABN “. . . failed to meet its burden to prove that its activities on the subject property were. . .” conducted without a view to profit. It then went on to say: “ . . . we find that the fact that property is used with a view to profit defeats a religious-use property tax exemption. . ..”

4) In another interesting statement, the Court said: “ . . . it is abundantly clear from the record that the primary use of TABN’s [sic] property is not to dispense charity to all who need and apply for it.:

5) So, the unanimous decision of the Appellate Court was to affirm the decision that the major part of its property was not exempt from taxes for the period in question.