NH BTLA Decision on Legionaries of Christ Tax Exemptions

In Re: Town of Center Harbor
Docket No.: 30409-22OS
ORDER
I. Background on Issues Presented
The issues presented in this docket were examined at a duly noticed January 6, 2023
hearing. Participants included:
For the “Town”: Laura Spector-Morgan, Esq. of Mitchell Municipal Group, P.A.;
Cindy Perkins of Comerford Nieder Perkins, LLC (the Town’s
contract assessing company); and
Richard Drenkharn, Chair, William Ricciardi and Harry Viens of
the Town’s Board of Selectmen;
For “LC”1
: Erin S. Bucksbaum, Esq. and Mark Beaudoin, Esq. of Nixon,
Peabody LLP; and
Fathers Frank Formolo and Jon Budke; and
For the “DRA”2
: Cheryl Deshaies, Esq., Assistant Revenue Counsel; and
Philip Bodwell, Certified Property Assessor Supervisor.
At the hearing, the board heard presentations from the attorneys for the Town, LC and the
DRA. Cindy Perkins and Fathers Formolo and Budke testified on behalf of the Town and LC,
respectively. One other individual (Rich Bergeron) attended the hearing and did not testify, but
submitted a written statement which was made part of the record without objection. At the
1
L.C. Center Harbor, Inc. [See October 12, 2022 Order and Hearing Notice; November 30, 2022 Order (granting
motions to continue the hearing and to intervene filed on behalf of LC); and August 17, 2022 Order.]
2
“DRA” - State of New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration.

Page 2 of 12
conclusion of the January 6 hearing, the board granted LC’s request to file a “Post-Hearing
Submission,” which was filed on January 17, 2023.
The hearing was held “for the Town to show cause why the exemptions previously
granted to LC… should not be revoked and the 2022 applications should not be denied.”
(See October 12, 2022 Order and Hearing Notice, p. 4.3
) These questions arose from undisputed
evidence that certain property exemptions were granted annually without compliance with the
requirements established by the statutes and case law of New Hampshire and despite obvious
changes in the use of several of the five “Properties” owned by LC (or affiliated entities)
identified below.
Map/Lot Address Description 2022
Assessed
Value
Map 229/Lot 1 27 Camp Road 160 acres improved with numerous
structures as a summer camp
$388,650
Map 103/Lot 2 278 Whittier Highway 0.35 acres with frontage on Lake
Winnipesaukee improved with a single-
family residence
$1,191,400
Map 105/Lot 16 Waukewan Road 0.92 acres - vacant lot $125,000
Map 105/Lot 17 Lake Waukewan 3.0 acres – vacant lot $243,200
Map 211/ Lot 1 105, 107, 109 and 111
Dane Road
28.46 acres improved with numerous,
substantial buildings previously used as
a private boarding school
$4,150,030
Summary 192.73 acres with numerous improvements (summarized above) $6,098,280
See LC’s December 29, 2022 “Position Statement,” pp. 3-4 and Exhibit 4. The following facts
are also not in dispute:
• LC is a “real estate holding company” for the Congregation of the Legionnaires of
Christ which owns real estate and/or operates in a number of states;
• LC “initially applied for tax exempt status in 2004” on the Properties (described
above) and received them annually from that time until 2021 without filing the
3
The board had questions regarding several other tax exemptions granted by the Town, including ones on property
owned by the Audubon Society of New Hampshire and Squam Lakes Association. The Town, however, provided
sufficient information to the board prior to the hearing to resolve those questions without further proceedings.

Page 3 of 12
required annual applications and/or financial statements in many of those years;
and
• LC received the property tax exemptions until tax year 2022 when the Town
removed them resulting in a “tax bill” totaling “$54,823.”
(Id., pp. 2-6 and Exhibit 4.)
II. LC’S Position
LC no longer challenges the Town’s denial of property tax exemptions on the Properties
for tax year 2022. (See Position Statement, pp. 6-13.) LC admits it only filed the statutorily
required applications4
(“A-9 form”) for “2004, 2008, 2010, 2014 and 2020” (id., p. 4) and did
not file (for tax year 2022) until October, 2022, almost 6 months past the April 15 deadline.
LC argues, however, that ‘revoking’ “LC’s tax exempt status between 2004 and 2021” at
this time would be “improper” because it is “barred by the statute of limitations,” the “doctrine
of estoppel,” “unjust enrichment” and “would violate LC’s due process rights.” For the reasons
detailed below, the board does not agree with these or any of LC’s other arguments challenging
the board’s authority to review and address “previously granted tax exemptions.” (Id., p. 13.)
First, LC fails to cite any statute of limitations that might even arguably limit or restrict
the board’s RSA 71-B:16 reassessment authority. The legislature prescribed no limitation period
to restrict the board’s authority “to order a reassessment of taxes previously assessed” when
property has been “fraudulently, improperly, unequally, or illegally assessed” and such facts
“come to the attention of the board from any source.” (See RSA 71-B:16, II.)
4
By law, timely and complete property tax exemption applications for religious, charitable and educational
organizations must be filed by April 15 and processed and reviewed annually in each municipality. (See, e.g.,
RSA 72:23, RSA 72:23-c and RSA 72:34.)

Page 4 of 12
The omission of a statute of limitations on the board’s reassessment authority is
noteworthy in light of limitation statutes governing other types of tax proceedings.5
LC does not
reference or otherwise rely on any specific or general statute in making its statute of limitations
arguments and the case authorities cited in the Position Statement (p. 8) also do not support those
arguments.
Second, to the extent the LC claims “estoppel” should apply based on a notion of “unjust
enrichment,” it should be clear that unjust enrichment results when any taxpayer is granted an
exemption it is not entitled to (to the detriment of other taxpayers). The board does not agree the
Town would be unjustly enriched if, because of a reassessment order, LC is required to pay
property taxes it was lawfully obligated to pay.
Third, to the extent LC claims “reliance” on the Town’s actions (or inactions), the facts
speak otherwise. It was LC, not the Town, that induced reliance by claiming and benefitting
from property tax exemptions in multiple years that it was not entitled to. LC now concedes
“there was no intentional misrepresentation by the Town.” (See Position Statement, p. 12.)
Fourth, with respect to LC’s arguable right to “appeal every assessment made against it”
(id., p. 8), the board finds that procedural right has not been lost. The board’s orders, including
this one, are subject to rehearing and appeal to the supreme court. (See RSA ch. 541.) In other
words, the board does not agree with LC’s argument that “Revoking LC’s tax-exempt status
5
The legislature has prescribed specific statutes of limitation for the enforcement of other tax statutes. (See, e.g.,
RSA 21-J:29, a three-year “Statute of Limitations” for “all taxes administered by” the DRA.)
Cf., RSA 79-A:7, II, (c), which provides an “actually discover” plus 18-month time period for selectmen to issue a
timely land use change tax “LUCT” bill, as applied in Evergreen Estates, LLC v. Town of Newfields, BTLA Docket
No, 27975-15LC (October 31, 2016 Decision) at pp. 7-12 (rejecting taxpayer argument that town could not send
LUCT bill seven years after change of use of land where evidence supported town’s position that it did not actually
discover change of use until that time).

Page 5 of 12
[sic6
] . . . would violate due process and should be prohibited by the doctrine of estoppel.”
(Cf. Position Statement, p. 6.)
Turning to the Post-Hearing Submission, the board does not agree with many of LC’s
assertions and at least one conclusion (misstated at p. 77
). The board understands LC’s position
that neither the Town nor the board has authority to order a reassessment on the Properties for
any years prior to 2022 essentially because they were previously exempted by the Town dating
back to tax year 2004. As discussed below, the board does not agree with LC’s legal arguments
but finds equitable and other considerations should govern the remedy ordered at this time.
III. Town’s Position
According to the Town:
[T]hree of the five properties at issue (Map 103, Lot 2; Map 229, Lot 1; and Map 211-
001) “have historically been exempt from taxation under the ‘religious’ exemption.”
The remaining two properties (Map 105, Lots 16 and 17) “have been identified as ‘non-
profit,’ which, according to the town’s assessor, is the equivalent of a ‘charitable’
exemption.” . . .
[T]he Town’s Response admits, with some candor, the Town “has been lax” in
processing the exemption applications on these properties on an annual basis and granting
exemptions to taxpayers who did not file applications. . . . [T]he Town has recently
“remove[d] the exemptions from all five properties [for tax year 2022].”
(See October 12, 2022 Order and Hearing Notice, pp. 2-3.)
At the January 6 hearing, Attorney Spector-Morgan, on behalf of the Town,
acknowledged it (acting through its Board of Selectmen) was remiss in its duties and the
6
In actuality, New Hampshire law exempts property from assessment and taxation, not the persons or entities (such
as LC) who own the property. This insight is helpful in understanding why property owned by otherwise worthy
entities, including religious groups, may or may not qualify for an exemption in each tax year. (See RSA 72:23, et
seq.)
7
The final passage in the Position Statement (p. 7) reads as follows: “the Town lacks authority to order a retroactive
revocation of the tax exempt status [sic] and to order the Town to newly assess taxes on the [five] lots going back to
2004.” In actuality, the issue presented is whether or not the board has such authority and how it should be
exercised based on the facts presented in this docket.

Page 6 of 12
exemptions on the Properties were improperly granted, but questioned whether the Town had the
statutory authority to remove them at this time. Unlike LC, however, she did not challenge the
board’s statutory authority to do so. Further, she stated the Town is taking “no position” on
whether LC should have to pay property taxes for the years they improperly received exemptions
prior to 2022.
At the hearing, Ms. Perkins (the Town’s contract assessor) testified she did not process or
review the A-9 (application) forms because she believed the Board of Selectmen was making
those decisions. The Board of Selectmen, however, believed Ms. Perkins was responsible for
and was performing those duties. In response to board questions regarding whether the assessor
had a contractual obligation to do so, Attorney Spector-Morgan replied she did not know, but
“she would definitely find out” (but the board has not yet received a response to this question).
She also stated the Town was going to be “instituting new procedures and a worksheet” similar
to the one proposed by the board in In Re: Town of Ossipee, BTLA Docket No. 30202-21OS
(August 10, 2022 Order).
IV. Board’s Rulings
Before making the rulings detailed below, the board examined all of the facts presented,
the relevant statutory scheme as a whole, supreme court decisions and precedents in its prior
orders. To begin with, a number of statutes are on point and are referenced below.
Pursuant to RSA 72:23-c (Annual List), the Town’s assessing contractor and Board of
Selectmen have the authority and duty to grant or deny property tax exemptions on an annual
basis. See also RSA 74:1 (“The selectmen of each town shall annually make a list of all the polls
and shall take an inventory of all the estate liable to be taxed in such town as of April 1.”);
RSA 74:2 (“At the time of making the list of polls and the inventory of estate liable to be taxed

Page 7 of 12
the selectmen shall also make an inventory of all lands, buildings and structures which, but for
the tax exemption laws of the state, would be taxable as real estate….”); RSA 75:1 (“The
selectmen shall appraise…all other taxable property at its market value.”); RSA 75:8, II
(“[a]ssessors and selectmen shall consider adjusting assessments for any properties that: …
(d) Have undergone changes to exemptions, credits or abatements” and (f) Have undergone other
changes affecting value”]; and RSA 75:8-a (“The assessors and/or selectmen shall reappraise all
real estate . . . at least as often as every fifth year . . .”).
Further, with respect to institutional tax exemptions, the Town has specific obligations
under RSA 72:23 to determine, each and every tax year, whether the property is entitled to an
exemption applied for. In making these determinations, the Town must:
• Review timely filed exemption applications (A-9 form);
• Review timely filed financial statements for entities applying for a charitable
exemption (“A-12” form);
• “[R]equest such materials concerning the organization seeking exemption
including its organizational documents, … , property and the nature of that
property, and such other information as shall be reasonably required to make
determinations of exemption…,” and;
• Review all requested documentation and ultimately make “determinations of
exemption of property” consistent with applicable statutes and case law.
(See RSA 72:23, VI and RSA 72:23-c, I and II cited above.)
When a taxpayer fails to file a timely annual application for such an exemption, and no
evidence exists the late filing was due to excusable accident, mistake or misfortune, the supreme
court has recently made it clear that the exemption application must be denied by the selectmen
(even if there is a prior history of granting the exemption). See New London Hospital
Association, Inc. v. Town of Newport, 174 N.H. 68, 72-74 (2021):

Page 8 of 12
The plain language of the statute requires that the Form A-9 exemption claim “shall” be
filed annually on or before April 15. Id. The use of the word “shall” indicates a
legislative mandate. [Citation omitted.] . . .
Strict adherence to the legislature’s deadline for charitable exemption applications does
not contravene the statute’s purpose. See Langford v. Town of Newton, 119 N.H. 470,
472 (1979) (explaining that the main purpose of inventory filing requirement is to assist
authorities in the efficient performance of their duties by providing an accurate and
comprehensive list of the community’s taxable property).
The board finds the Town erroneously allowed LC to receive property tax exemptions it
was not entitled to receive from 2004 through 2021 on the Properties identified above. These
Properties had an aggregate value in excess of six million dollars in 2022 resulting in every other
taxpayer in the Town paying a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Notwithstanding the
arguments in the Post-Hearing Submission, there is no doubt LC received substantial monetary
benefits from property tax exemptions to which it was not entitled, over the course of many
years, to the detriment of the Town and its other taxpayers.
The board recognizes the task of determining entitlement to institutional property tax
exemptions can be a challenge in each municipality, one that has resulted in a considerable body
of case law.8
In light of these challenges, the board finds equitable considerations are entitled to
weight in fashioning an appropriate remedy in this docket. The board finds ordering the Town to
reassess LC for multiple tax years would not be equitable or reasonable (but not for the reasons
argued in the Post-Hearing Submission and discussed above). Instead, the board’s remedy in this
8
See, e.g., The Marist Brothers of New Hampshire v. Town of Effingham, 171 N.H. 305 (2018) (reversing denial of
charitable exemption by municipality and superior court). In every such instance, the burden remains on the
taxpayer to prove entitlement to a property tax exemption. Id. at 309-326 [weighing the four factors for a charitable
exemption articulated in ElderTrust of Fla. v. Town of Epsom, 154 N.H. 693 (2007) and explaining how those
factors were applied in other exemption decisions].

Page 9 of 12
docket is based largely on the fact the last Town-wide revaluation9
was completed for tax year
2022. Thus, although a broader remedy could be imposed, the board finds no reassessment of
the Properties should be ordered for years prior to 2022. This finding is consistent with several
recent board orders. See Ossipee (May 27, 2022 Order, p. 5) and In re: Town of Alton, BTLA
Docket No. 30399-22OS (March 29, 2023 Order, pp. 3-4).
In addition, the board notes the DRA is obligated to review a municipality’s assessing
practices and consider whether “[e]xemption and credit procedures substantially comply with
applicable statutes and rules” every five (5) years, which they performed in tax year 2022. See
RSA 75:8-a, RSA 21-J:11-a, I (c) and RSA 21-J:3, XXVI. To date, the DRA has not issued the
results of the 2022 assessment review (presumably because it is reviewing the reassessment
manual for compliance with Standard 6 of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice).
In its August 30, 2022 response to a prior board order, the DRA described its own:
efforts to persuade the Town to address and correct these problems [pertaining to the
processing of institutional property tax exemptions]. These efforts date back to at least
2013 and 2018 when the DRA communicated to the Town it “did not meet the
assessment review standards for institutional exemptions for either of the two assessment
review years.” See DRA’s Assessment Review Letters dated July 8, 2013 and October 5,
2018 (regarding tax years 2012 and 2017, respectively). . . .
In both of the 2013 and 2018 assessment review cycles, the DRA noted Town’s assessing
9
RSA 75:8-a confers a statutory obligation for the “assessors and selectmen” in each municipality to “reappraise all
real estate within the municipality so that the assessments are at full and true value at least as often as every fifth
year…. ” and the department of revenue administration (“DRA”) is required to review a municipality’s assessing
practices to “achieve substantial compliance with applicable statutes and rules” every five (5) years. (See also RSA
21-J:11-a, I (c) and RSA 21-J:3, XXVI.)

Page 10 of 12
practices did not meet the standards adopted by the ASB10
and the DRA notified the Town and
its assessor of the deficiencies. Ms. Perkins testified she read the letters noted above and spoke
with “an administrative assistant” employed by the Town but did not communicate with the
Board of Selectmen regarding their contents. There is nothing in the record that would allow the
board to find the Town took any corrective action in response to this continuing non-compliance.
In light of this record, the Town is ordered to submit to the board (within 60 days) copies
of its written assessing procedures for institutional property tax exemptions as discussed above.
These procedures should clearly identify, at a minimum, allocation of responsibilities between
the Board of Selectmen and the Town’s contract assessor and a thorough and timely decision
making process.
V. Further Considerations
As noted above, the board has recently issued reassessment orders involving the granting
of institutional exemptions in the Towns of Ossipee and Alton. Each docket presented somewhat
similar issues and, in each municipality, as in the Town, the DRA found deficiencies in recent
five-year assessment review cycles. Unfortunately, the record does not reflect corrective actions
were completed in any of them (beyond the preliminary reporting phase undertaken by the
DRA).
10
The Standards for Monitoring of Local Assessment Practices by the Department of Revenue Administration
Adopted by the Assessing Standards Board (the “ASB”) (dated May 11, 2018) for institutional exemptions state:
C. The DRA shall determine that exemption and credit procedures substantially comply with applicable
statutes and rules by testing to see that:
2. Annually, pursuant to RSA 74:2, the municipality reviews all Religious, Educational and
Charitable exemptions and has on file a current Form BTLA A-9, List of Real Estate on which
Exemption is Claimed as described in Tax 401.04(b).

Page 11 of 12
The relevant statutes give the responsibility for conducting these reviews to the DRA,
who in turn provides copies of the results to the municipalities and the ASB. The statutes,
however, may not give either the DRA or the ASB statutory authority to require a municipality
to resolve these problems.
RSA 21-J:14-b, I states:
The assessing standards board shall recommend standards and appropriate legislation
relative to:
(a) Standards to be followed by assessors, selectmen, and boards of assessors throughout
the state, relating to the administration of the property tax and assessment of real property
used in any state property tax system.
(b) The establishment of standards for monitoring of local assessment practices by the
department of revenue administration….
(c) The establishment of standards for revaluations based on the most recent edition of
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The department of
revenue administration shall in its assessment review process incorporate these standards
and report its findings to the assessing standards board and the municipality, in
accordance with RSA 21-J:11-a, II. …
Based on the recurring issues identified above, as well as the testimony of the Town’s
own assessing contractor11
and the board’s experience in other reassessment cases, there is
reason to believe the deficiencies in assessing practices relative to institutional exemptions may
be widespread and not limited to these three municipalities. Because a clear intent of the
assessment review process is to improve the quality of assessing practices throughout the state,
resulting in greater proportionality for all taxpayers, the board finds the ASB and DRA should
consider proposing legislation to strengthen the enforcement mechanisms pertaining to
11
In her testimony Ms. Perkins stated Commerford, Nieder and Perkins (of which she is “part owner”) is currently
the contract assessing firm in 23 New Hampshire municipalities, and she herself works in “10 or 11” of them.

Page 12 of 12
institutional (religious, charitable and educational) exemptions and other criteria contained in the
standards established by the ASB (see fn. 10).
SO ORDERED
BOARD OF TAX AND LAND APPEALS
__________________________________
Anne M. Stelmach, Clerk
Per Order of the Board
Certification
I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing Order has been mailed this date, postage prepaid,
to: Laura Spector-Morgan, Esq., Mitchell Municipal Group, P.A., 25 Beacon Street East,
Laconia, NH 03246, Municipality Representative; Chairman, Board of Selectmen, Town of
Center Harbor, PO Box 140, Center Harbor, NH 03226; Erin Bucksbaum, Esq. and Mark
Beaudoin, Esq., Nixon Peabody, LLP, 900 Elm Street, Manchester, NH 03301-2031, Intervenor
Representative; Peter Roth, Esq. and Phillip E. Bodwell, CNHA, Certified Property Assessor
Supervisor, State of New Hampshire, Department of Revenue Administration, 109 Pleasant
Street, Concord, NH 03301, DRA Representatives; and Commerford Nieder Perkins, LLC, 556
Pembroke Street, Suite 1, Pembroke, NH 03275, Contracted Assessing Firm.
Dated: April 19, 2023
__________________________________
Anne M. Stelmach, Clerk

NH BTLA Decision on Legionaries of Christ Tax Exemptions

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to NH BTLA Decision on Legionaries of Christ Tax Exemptions

Similar to NH BTLA Decision on Legionaries of Christ Tax Exemptions (20)

More from Rich Bergeron

More from Rich Bergeron (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

NH BTLA Decision on Legionaries of Christ Tax Exemptions