RIVER RATS INC v. BOROUGH OF FAIR HAVEN
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0185-19T4
RIVER RATS INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOROUGH OF FAIR HAVEN,
Defendant-Respondent.
_______________________________
Submitted December 7, 2020 – Decided December 23, 2020
Before Judges Fasciale and Rothstadt.
On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey, Docket
No. 008332-2016.
DLA Piper, LLP, attorneys for appellant (Karl H. Buch
and E. Giovannie Mercado, on the briefs).
Cleary Giacobbe Alfieri Jacobs, LLC, attorneys for
respondent (Lani M. Lombardi, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff River Rats Inc. appeals from an order dated August 14, 2019,
granting summary judgment to defendant Borough of Fair Haven (the Borough)
on the issue of property tax exemption for plaintiff's two contiguous lots. On
appeal, plaintiff raises the following points for this court's consideration :
POINT I
THE TAX [JUDGE] ERRED BY DENYING
PLAINTIFF'S . . . MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT BECAUSE [PLAINTIFF] PRESENTED
SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT IT IS ENTITLED
TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION[.] (Raised
Below).
A. [Plaintiff] is [E]xclusively [O]rganized for a
[T]ax [E]xempt purpose[.]
i. [Plaintiff]'s constituent documents prove
that it is exclusively organized as a school
or college[.]
ii. [Plaintiff]'s constituent documents
prove that it is exclusively organized for
the moral and mental improvement of men,
women, and children[.]
B. [Plaintiffs]'s [P]roperty [C]ontains [B]uildings
that are [A]ctually [U]sed for a [T]ax [E]xempt
[P]urpose.
i. The buildings are actually used to operate
a school[.]
ii. The buildings are actually used to
operate a college[.]
iii. The buildings are actually used to
promote the moral and mental
A-0185-19T4
2
improvement of men, women, and
children[.]
C. Plaintiff is [N]ot [C]onducted for [P]rofit.
We conclude that the structures on plaintiff's property do not qualify as buildings
within the exemption statute and plaintiff is not organized for, and exclusively
used as, a school, nor for the moral and mental improvement of men, women,
and children. We therefore affirm.
Plaintiff is a members-only sailing organization, incorporated on June 23,
1960, and first registered as an I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization on
February 24, 1961. In its certificate of incorporation, plaintiff set forth its
purpose under article II:
1. To promote, encourage and sponsor children and
family group participation and interest in aquatic
activities.
2. To provide training and instruction for safety in
the participation of aquatic activities.
3. To acquire, hold, manage and provide facilities
for participation in aquatic activities and achievement
of the purpose of the association.
Plaintiff offers four categories of membership: family, life, sustaining,
and honorary. Family memberships are available to families with at least one
child under sixteen years old or to adults who sponsor a child and permit a family
A-0185-19T4
3
to use plaintiff's facilities, participate in social activities, and receive a discount
on its children's training program. Plaintiff limits family memberships to 125
families, of which no more than twenty-five can be non-residents of the
Borough. Plaintiff's bylaws give residents preference over non-residents
whenever there are more valid applications than available family memberships.
Family members are afforded voting rights, can serve as trustees, and may be
elected as officers to the executive board. Life memberships are available to
families who were involved in plaintiff's founding or "have given long term
service" to plaintiff and provides all the rights of family membership.
Sustaining memberships are available to member families, do not entail
facilities privileges or voting rights, and only allow the member to participate in
plaintiff's social activities. Honorary memberships are granted to those who are
recognized by various public officials and entail the same rights as sustaining
memberships. Neither honorary members nor sustaining members are required
to pay dues. Plaintiff permits all members temporary use of its docks, summer
storage for boats, mooring storage, use of its picnic tables and dock, use of its
mooring field, and access—for a fee—to social and sailing events.
Plaintiff owns lots 21 and 71, which are contiguous, of block 27 in the
Borough. Lot 21 is classified as a class two property (residential property, as
A-0185-19T4
4
per N.J.A.C. 18:12-2.2(b)) and measures approximately 1.51 acres. Lot 71 is
classified as a class one property (vacant land, as per N.J.A.C. 18:12-2.2(a)) and
measures approximately 0.8 acres.
On May 21, 1966, the Fair Haven Zoning Board of Adjustment
categorized plaintiff as "a community service organization not operated for
profit" and conditioned various variance approvals upon plaintiff's using the
premises for "family sailing and recreational activities associated therewith,
including instruction for boating . . . [and] a program of competitive racing and
related activities with others who are not members of" plaintiff.
Lot 21 currently contains five wood-framed structures, covered by roofs,
that have hinged doors with padlocks and stand on cinderblocks or other
supports. The structures are between eighteen square feet and sixty-four square
feet. There exists no indication that they are equipped with windows,
ventilation, utilities, or plumbing. Plaintiff uses four of the structures to store
equipment, including sails, masts, and rudders, and one of them to store picnic
items and other equipment for its events. It reported end-of-year values for "land
and buildings" of $27,681 in 2014 and $26,031 in 2015. The Borough
determined that the structures were taxable improvements for 2016.
A-0185-19T4
5
On May 27, 2015, plaintiff submitted an initial statement of organization
claiming property tax exemption to the Borough's Tax Assessor (the assessor).
In its initial statement, plaintiff claimed an exemption under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6.
It listed its organization's purpose as "[s]ailing instruction and safe boating for
children and families," and indicated that it used its five storage structures
entirely in furtherance of that purpose.
On September 17, 2015, the Borough sent a letter through its counsel
asking plaintiff to clarify what specific statutory exemption its use fell under,
whether it previously applied for an exemption, whether it charges fees, and
what activities it performed, among other matters. The Borough also requested
documentation regarding any prior exemption application, tax returns and a
member list, among other documents.
In its November 3, 2015 response, plaintiff specified that it sought an
exemption because it uses its structures for educational purposes and for the
public's moral and mental improvement.
Plaintiff stated that it sought an exemption in 2010, which the assessor
denied because its property did not have any buildings. It attached letters from
the Borough in which the Borough clarified that it denied the exemption because
the property did not contain buildings and that plaintiff did not address the other
A-0185-19T4
6
statutory requirements. Plaintiff stated that it now had buildings within the
meaning of the statute, including sheds and other structures that the Borough
previously determined to be taxable improvements, and that the buildings were
necessary for its charitable purposes.
James Banahan, plaintiff's Executive Officer, certified that lot 71 is
exclusively below the mean high tide water mark and, as such, the state owns
the property under the public trust doctrine. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot build
on the lot. He certified that club members and the general public "occasionally"
explore the lot via kayak or canoe.
Plaintiff further explained that it offers three types of educational training
programs. The first, the "Junior Sailing Training Program," offers sessions two
and a half days per week, for four weeks. It conducts its classes via chalkboard
sessions on picnic benches and hands-on sailboat sessions in the water. The
class has a twenty-five-student limit, and the students are provided a textbook
with information on sailing and water safety. Banahan certified that children
who complete the junior program receive a state-recognized certification that
notes their hours and level of sailing expertise, though plaintiff did not specify
the state entity that recognizes the certification or provide any supporting
documentation regarding either the certification or instructional materials.
A-0185-19T4
7
Plaintiff stated that it offers scholarships for students with financial need and
supports the program through members who volunteer their services and do not
receive compensation. In its 2013 and 2015 tax returns, however, plaintiff stated
that it did not provide scholarships or financial assistance.
Plaintiff's second program is the "Adult Sailing Training Program," which
holds three classroom sessions and three days of water instruction. Volunteers
run the classes and use loaner and volunteer boats. Instructors evaluate the
students' prowess on the first day and cater subsequent instruction to the
students' particular knowledge and skill.
Plaintiff's third program is the "Sailing Loaner Boat Program," which
consists of members who do not own their own sailboats and pay a fee to use its
three loaner boats. Plaintiff also runs weekly races during the summer for the
purpose of promoting sailing. Banahan certified that the races are open to the
public, that members of the public "occasionally participate" in the races and
that the property is open to the public on the day of the race, so that the public
can view the race for free.
Plaintiff's primary source of income is the "Junior Sailing Training
Program." Its other sources of income include member dues, member fees,
training tuition, donations, fundraising and "miscellaneous." Plaintiff does not
A-0185-19T4
8
solicit contributions. It uses all fees it generates from the program to maintain
its equipment and facilities.
On January 12, 2016, the assessor denied plaintiff's request for an
exemption and assessed lot 71 at $82,300 and lot 21 at $313,500 total: $302,000
for land, and $11,500 for buildings. Thereafter, on January 9, 2016, plaintiff
filed two petitions of appeal—one for lot 21 and one for lot 71—with the
Monmouth County Board of Taxation. On March 31, 2016, the Monmouth
County Board of Taxation issued two memorandums of judgment, denying
plaintiff's claims as to each lot on the basis that the structures do not constitute
"buildings" within the definition of the statute. The assessor did not make any
findings as to plaintiff's organizational structure or use of the property.
Thereafter, on May 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a complaint with the tax court,
seeking an exemption for both lots. On February 1, 2019, plaintiff moved for
summary judgment. On June 18, 2019, the Borough cross-moved for summary
judgment and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. On August 14,
2019, the tax judge entered a final order and judgment, with an accompanying
opinion, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting the
Borough's cross-motion for summary judgment. In her opinion, the judge
analyzed whether plaintiff's five wooden structures constitute "buildings" under
A-0185-19T4
9
the statute and found that they do not because they are not intended for human
residence or habitation, are not equipped with utilities, do not have windows or
means of ventilation, and are not permanent nor affixed to the ground. The judge
also analyzed plaintiff's claim for exemption under Paper Mill Playhouse v.
Twp. of Millburn, 95 N.J. 503, 506 (1984), and found that plaintiff does not
qualify for exemption as a school.
The judge also found that plaintiff is not organized to promote the moral
and mental improvement of the public and is not exclusively used for that
purpose. The judge did not specifically rule on whether plaintiff operates its
property for profit but blended this analysis into whether plaintiff actually uses
its property for the public's moral and mental improvement. The judge was not
persuaded that plaintiff exists for the general public's benefit or that it is not
engaged in a seemingly commercial enterprise. Finally, the judge found that lot
71 is not exempt because it is a vacant lot that is contiguous to lot 21 that it
found is not exempt.
We disagree with plaintiff's argument that the tax judge erred by granting
summary judgment in favor of the Borough on the issue of plaintiff's entitlement
to a property tax exemption.
A-0185-19T4
10
Rule 4:46-2 provides that a tax judge should grant summary judgment
when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact challenged" and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins.
Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).
When the plaintiff moves for summary judgment, the motion judge must
view the facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the defendant's favor and
decide whether a reasonable factfinder could determine that the plaintiff has not
met its burden of proof. The judge must deny the motion if a reasonable
factfinder could decide in the defendant's favor. Globe Motor Co. v. Igdalev,
225 N.J. 469, 481 (2016). This court reviews the issue de novo. Advance Hous.,
Inc. v. Township of Teaneck, 215 N.J. 549, 566 (2013).
The burden to demonstrate the right to tax exemption is on the claimant,
Int'l Sch. Servs., Inc. v. W. Windsor Twp., 207 N.J. 3, 24 (2011), and courts
construe statutes granting exemption strictly against those seeking it. Paper
Mill, 95 N.J. at 506-07. However, strict construction of the statutes must be
reasonable and courts should not give words "a rigid scholastic interpretation
. . . . The rule of strict construction must never be allowed to defeat the evident
legislative design." Boys' Club of Clifton, Inc. v. Twp. of Jefferson, 72 N.J.
A-0185-19T4
11
389, 398 (1977) (quoting Twp. of Princeton v. Tenacre Found., 69 N.J. Super.
559, 563 (App. Div. 1961)).
The New Jersey Constitution exempts from taxation real property that is
owned by a non-profit organization and used exclusively for charitable
purposes—"as defined by law." Advance Housing, 215 N.J. at 566 (citing N.J.
Const. art. VIII, § 1, ¶ 2). The applicable law with respect to property tax
exemption is N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6. Id. at 566-67. The portions of the statute that
are relevant to the disputed issues between the parties provides:
The following property shall be exempt from taxation
under this chapter: all buildings actually used for
colleges, schools, academies or seminaries, provided
that if any portion of such buildings are leased to profit-
making organizations or otherwise used for purposes
which are not themselves exempt from taxation, said
portion shall be subject to taxation and the remaining
portion only shall be exempt; . . . all buildings actually
used in the work of associations and corporations
organized exclusively for the moral and mental
improvement of men, women and children, provided
that if any portion of a building used for that purpose is
leased to profit-making organizations or is otherwise
used for purposes which are not themselves exempt
from taxation, that portion shall be subject to taxation
and the remaining portion only shall be exempt; . . . the
land whereon any of the buildings hereinbefore
mentioned are erected, and which may be necessary for
the fair enjoyment thereof, and which is devoted to the
purposes above mentioned and to no other purpose and
does not exceed five acres in extent: . . . provided, in
case of all the foregoing, the buildings, or the lands on
A-0185-19T4
12
which they stand, or the associations, corporations or
institutions using and occupying them as aforesaid, are
not conducted for profit[.]
[N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6.]
The Supreme Court distilled the statutory requirements for a corporation
seeking exemption into the following three-part test: "(1) it must be organized
exclusively for the [tax-exempt purpose]; (2) its property must be actually and
exclusively used for the tax-exempt purpose; and (3) its operation and use of its
property must not be conducted for profit." Paper Mill, 95 N.J. at 506.
The Court later noted that the Legislature subsequently amended the
former exclusivity-of-use requirement of N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 to permit exemption
for property that is "actually used" by the corporation for the tax -exempt
purpose. Int'l Sch., 207 N.J. at 16. Plaintiff's property is not actually or
exclusively used for a tax-exempt purpose, nor is it organized exclusively for a
tax-exempt purpose. Although plaintiff's operation is not conducted for profit,
plaintiff nevertheless cannot satisfy the first two parts of the three-part Paper
Mill test, nor the statutory requirement that the property contain a building. As
such, plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence that it was entitled to
property tax exemption for its two contiguous lots.
A-0185-19T4
13
I.
We first address plaintiff's argument that its structures qualify as
"buildings" because they are permanent and have the structural characteristics
of buildings. We will also address plaintiff's contention that the structures are
ancillary buildings which store essential items necessary to its operation and are
therefore entitled to exemption.
In Salvation Army v. Alexandria Twp., 2 N.J. Tax 292, 297 (Tax 1981),
the tax court conceded that the Legislature did not define the term "building" in
the exemption statute. The tax court set forth a two-part analysis to determine
whether a structure qualifies as a "building" under the statute. Id. at 298-300.
It termed the first part the structural test, for which the entity must be a "fabric
or edifice constructed," id. at 298 (citing Children's Seashore House v. Atlantic
City, 68 N.J.L. 385, 389-90 (1902)), that has "the physical characteristics with
respect to material and design that are inherent in buildings." Ibid.
The tax court termed the second part the functional test, which "involves
a determination of the purpose for which a structure was intended, as related to
the purpose of the charitable organization." Id. at 299-300. In relation to the
land, the building must "be the principal factor in the scheme and not a mere
incident to the purposes of the encampment or some other temporary device."
A-0185-19T4
14 Id. at 299 (quoting Children's Seashore, 68 N.J.L. at 390). The court cautioned
that a "less restrictive definition" could lead to the exemption of "large
aggregations of property from the common burden of taxation." Ibid. (quoting
Children's Seashore, 68 N.J.L. at 391).
In Salvation Army, the tax court examined the plaintiff's claim for
exemption of nine permanent tent platforms, which were between eighteen and
twenty-four square feet, made of wood and rested on cinderblocks that were not
embedded in the ground. Id. at 300-01. The plaintiff pitched tents on them
during the camping season and up to nine people could fit in them. Id. at 301.
The tax court held that the structures were not "buildings" under the structural
test. Ibid. The court in Fairleigh Dickinson University v. Florham Park
Borough, 5 N.J. Tax 343, 346 (Tax 1983), also recognized this dichotomy of
temporariness versus permanence. It held that the guardhouses in question were
not "buildings" because it did not have evidence before it that they "were of
sufficient permanence to be considered buildings." Ibid.
Here, the structures in question do not satisfy the structural test. They do
not appear to be intended for habitation. They are small and do not have
windows, and there is no indication that they have ventilation, utilities, or
plumbing. They rest on cinderblocks and do not display any indications of
A-0185-19T4
15
permanence. Rather, they appear to be akin to portable storage containers that
plaintiff uses to store and secure its possessions.
As to the functional test, the tax court in Salvation Army found that the
plaintiff's structures failed to satisfy this test as well. Id. at 301-02. The
campers' cabins qualified as "buildings" within the definition of the statute, as
they provided permanent housing that was essential to the plaintiff's summer
camp. The tents and platforms, however, were incidental and temporary. Ibid.
Here, like in Salvation Army, the structures do not satisfy the functional
test. They are not the focal point of the property. Rather, they are small,
moveable, shed-like structures on a large plot of land. The sole function they
serve is to store plaintiff's possessions. Plaintiff does not utilize them for a
function essential to its operations such as conducting classroom sessions or
sailing practice. Because plaintiff does not satisfy the structural nor function
tests, its structures cannot meet the statutory requirement that the tax-exempt
land contain a "building."
The Salvation Army tax court also noted that the Legislature emphasized
the exemption of buildings and only intended for land holdings to be exempted
when they are necessary for the enjoyment of the buildings. Id. at 296. As such,
"[v]acant land is entitled to no exemption" under the statute. Ibid. Accord City
A-0185-19T4
16
of Hackensack v. Hackensack Med. Ctr., 9 N.J. Tax 460, 462 (Tax 1988) (stating
that "[l]and is exempt under N.J.S.A. 54:4-3.6 only as an incident to the
exemption of buildings erected thereon").
As to the statutory exemption for land necessary for the fair enjoyment of
the building, "necessary" does not mean that the land is indispensable, but that
it is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the institution. Boys'
Club, 72 N.J. at 401. As such, the caselaw does not support the exemption of
either the structures on lot 21 or the land. Under Salvation Army, plaintiff's land
must be necessary to the enjoyment of the buildings for the surrounding land on
lot 21 to be exempt. Clearly it is not. It therefore follows that lot 71, which was
only "occasionally" explored by members and the public, which is insufficient
to qualify as necessary to plaintiff's sailing operations, also cannot qualify. The
tax judge noted—and we agree—that once lot 71 is found to not be exempt on
its own, and lot 21 is found to not be exempt, the former cannot gain exemption
by virtue of being contiguous to the main lot.
As to plaintiff's argument regarding ancillary buildings, we examine the
property as a whole, in relation to its tax-exempt purpose. See Fairleigh
Dickinson, 5 N.J. Tax at 356 (noting that property should be examined "as a
whole in relation to its purpose and not merely as a composite of unrelated,
A-0185-19T4
17
individual buildings"). Viewing the property as a whole in relation to its purpose
of teaching sailing skills, the small, portable sheds that store equipment do not
constitute ancillary buildings under the statute.
II.
We next turn to plaintiff's argument that its constituent documents
demonstrate that it is exclusively organized for training and education, which is
the essence of a school or college, and that its structures—which it also argues
are "buildings"—provide formal instruction in a manner consistent with a school
or college.
We look at the corporation's organizational documents, including its
bylaws and articles of incorporation, when determining whether it is organized
exclusively for a tax-exempt purpose. Phillipsburg Riverview Org., Inc. v.
Town of Phillipsburg, 26 N.J. Tax 167, 176 (Tax 2011).
As to plaintiff's actual use of the property for the charitable purpose, the
proper application of this test "depends upon the facts of each case." Paper Mill,
95 N.J. at 514. In Advance Housing, the court summarized the issue:
Although all relevant considerations cannot be captured
by any list given the ever-changing scenarios that will
arise, and although each consideration may not
necessarily deserve the same weight, here are some that
apply to the circumstances of this case: (1) the
charitable work done by the private entity will spare the
A-0185-19T4
18
government an expense that ultimately it must bear . . .
(2) the private entity must not be engaged in a seeming
commercial enterprise . . . (3) the property must be used
in a manner to further the charitable purpose . . . (4) the
receipt of government subsidies or funds is not
contraindicative of a charitable purpose . . . (5)
financial support and recognition by the State of a
private entity's charitable work may be indicative that
its property is used for a charitable purpose . . . and (6)
the private entity in carrying out its charitable mission
through the use of its property is addressing an
important and legitimate governmental concern[.]
[ 215 N.J. at 572-73 (internal citations and quotations omitted).]
Plaintiff's organizational documents do not meet the first prong of the
Paper Mill test and, as such, it does not qualify for exemption under the statute
as an educational institution. Its constitution does set forth its purpose as
providing training for aquatic activities, and its certification of incorporation
lists its purpose as providing training and instruction in aquatic activities and
safety in those activities. However, it fails the exclusivity requirement of the
first prong because its bylaws demonstrate that it uses its property exclusively
for its members' social activities.
Plaintiff argues that interpreting the exclusivity requirement to exclude
social activities would deny exemption to traditional schools because they
organize social and entertainment activities, such as dances, proms and
fundraisers. However, these activities are incidental to the schools' educational
A-0185-19T4
19
purposes and activities, are typically sporadic, and often occur after school
hours. Here, plaintiff offers two entire classes of memberships—sustaining
memberships and honorary memberships—that revolve entirely around
participation in social activities.
Plaintiff also does not qualify as a school or college under the caselaw.
N.J. Carpenters Apprentice Training & Educ. Fund v. Borough of Kenilworth ,
147 N.J. 171, 173-74 (1996), involved the exemption claim for the building
owned and operated by a carpenters training and education fund. The Court
declined to adopt a "broad" definition of "school" that would encompass "all
institutions of learning." Id. at 178. The Court noted that prior caselaw "does
not suggest that every barber's college or art school is also a college[.]" Id. at
182. Although the fund did serve an educational purpose in training apprentices
to become carpenters, its primary purpose was to benefit the construction
industry, a profit-making sector of the economy, and it did not benefit society
in the way the Legislature contemplated when it enacted the statute. Id. at 189.
"[I]t is the public benefit resulting from education that justifies granting sc hools
and colleges exemption from taxation[.]" Ibid. (citing Kimberley Sch. v. Town
of Montclair, 2 N.J. 28, 42 (1949)).
A-0185-19T4
20
Similarly, the Court in Textile Research Institute v. Township of
Princeton, 35 N.J. 218, 223 (1961), affirmed the agency's denial of exemption
to the land and property of an organization that provided research and instruction
in the textile field on the basis that it was primarily designed to benefit the textile
industry. The court held that "the word 'college' does not embrace an
organization which is controlled by a particular profit-making segment of
society and which is devoted principally and primarily to research for the benefit
of that industry." Id. at 222-23. Moreover, In Township of Princeton v. Institute
for Advanced Study, 59 N.J. Super. 46, 49 (App. Div. 1960), the Court examined
the exemption of buildings used in connection with an educational institution.
The institution in question was a non-profit organized for advanced study. Id.
at 49. It had twenty-two faculty members and about 125 students, most of whom
were on leaves of absence from other universities and participated in the
institution to pursue their respective fields of research or study. Id. at 50. The
institution did not have formal instruction and afforded members office space
and secretarial help, with the freedom to pursue their own research. Id. at 50-
51. In holding that the institution was a "college," the court employed an
expanded interpretation of "college" that "comport[ed] with the manifest re ason
and obvious purpose of the law." Id. at 55. The court noted that the institution
A-0185-19T4
21
had "every attribute of an institution of learning" and "encourag[ed] the cause
of education and research." Ibid.
Here, plaintiff's organizational documents demonstrate that it intends to
benefit its members by providing them with sailing instruction, as opposed to
benefitting the for-profit sailing industry. However, it does not satisfy any of
the other criteria for a school or college. It is not accredited as a school by the
New Jersey Department of Education or any other governmental agency. Its
organizational documents reference training and instruction, but do not assert
that it is a school or college. Plaintiff does not attach its certification of cou rse
completion or set forth what, if any, benefits inure to its members by virtue of
obtaining the certificate. Plaintiff only provides limited instruction to its
students for a brief period of time and furthering the cause of sailing knowledge
and proficiency does not provide the necessary public and societal benefit for to
qualify for exemption.
III.
We now address plaintiff's contention it is organized for the public's moral
and mental improvement because it promotes public interest in sailing and
contributes to the educational and cultural development of society by educating
families about sailing and by allowing the community to view the races.
A-0185-19T4
22
"There is no legislative delineation of the 'moral and mental improvement'
classification in the exemption statute. The cluster of abstract concepts
themselves suggest that, at most, only a descriptive definition is contemplated."
Chester Theatre Grp. of Black River Playhouse v. Borough of Chester, 115 N.J.
Super. 360, 364 (App. Div. 1971). In Chester Theatre, the court found that a
theater organization satisfied the purpose of the exemption in that it sought "to
enrich the experience of its members and patrons and to ennoble and strengthen
their character," id. at 365, and to "develop[] or better[] . . . the mental faculties."
Id. at 364. Courts have applied the classification "to various public and civic
organizations, which directly serve the public by contributing to the educational,
cultural and spiritual development in society in general." Phillipsburg, 26 N.J.
Tax at 176. "[T]he entity must 'perform[] an important public service through
its activities which promote "the moral and mental improvement of men, women
and children[.]"'" Int'l Sch. Servs., Inc. v. W. Windsor Twp., 381 N.J. Super.
383, 388 (App. Div. 2005) (second alteration in original) (quoting Town of
Bloomfield v. Acad. of Med., 47 N.J. 358, 366 (1966)).
Just as plaintiff's organizational documents demonstrate that it is not
organized exclusively as a school, they also demonstrate that it is not organized
exclusively for the public's moral and mental improvement. Its bylaws show
A-0185-19T4
23
that its members are its beneficiaries. Plaintiff offers four different classes of
memberships, and the free memberships offer benefits involving soci al
activities, with very limited other benefits. The family membership, which
requires a fee, provides the most benefits.
Even if this court were to examine whether plaintiff exclusively uses its
property for the public's moral and mental improvement, plaintiff fails to meet
this prong because its bylaws limit nearly all benefits of its activities to
members. Not only does plaintiff only permit members to avail themselves of
its sailing training and instruction, but it only permits members to use its doc ks,
store boats and use its moorings, use its picnic tables and docks, and access
social and sailing events.
The only benefit plaintiff offers to the non-member public is community
access to the river and the ability to view races on its race days. The public
otherwise has limited access (or no access) to the river, because the shoreline is
occupied by private residences. However, temporary and limited access to the
property does not equate to actual use of the property by the public. This limited
public benefit clearly does not suffice as a valuable public service that enhances
the public's moral and mental improvement, especially in light of our Court's
holdings that "[s]tatutes granting exemption from taxation represent a departure
A-0185-19T4
24
and consequently they are most strongly construed against those claiming
exemption." Int'l Sch., 207 N.J. at 15 (quoting Princeton Univ. Press v. Borough
of Princeton, 35 N.J. 209, 214 (1961)). Courts have held that members'
benefitting from "social intercourse" is insufficient reason to grant properties
the moral and mental improvement exemption. Camden Lodge No. 111 v. City
of Camden, 135 N.J.L. 532, 534 (Sup. Ct. 1947).
Plaintiff argues that it offers "tangible benefits to families and the
community," including instilling teamwork, communication, responsibility,
problem-solving skills, and a sense of adventure. Although sailing is certainly
a fine activity, it is a recreational activity and does not contribute to the public's
moral and mental improvement. Entities are organized for the public's moral
and mental improvement when organized for higher-level purposes, particularly
those intended to strengthen character and develop mental faculties. See, e.g.,
Paper Mill, 95 N.J. at 507 (theater organization organized "to promote 'a greater
interest in and a greater appreciation of art, music, drama, history, literature,
education and the theater'"); Bloomfield, 47 N.J. at 362 (organization dedicated
to "'pathological and anatomical study and investigation, and the advancement
and promotion of medical and surgical science,'" and that maintained largest
medical library in State, which was open to public); Princeton Univ. Press, 35
A-0185-19T4
25 N.J. at 211 (printing and publishing plant that published outstanding scholarly
works and was formed "for the promotion of education and scholarship"); Int'l
Sch., 381 N.J. Super. at 385-86 (organization designed "'to remedy the
shortcomings of overseas schools in which American children were enrolled and
to serve the children by enhancing the quality of their education'"); Chester
Theatre, 115 N.J. Super. at 361-62 (theater group that provided artistic
performances open to public and sought "'to stimulate, perpetuate and develop
interest in the dramatic arts and to educate the general public in the arts'");
Planned Parenthood of Bergen Cty., Inc. v. Hackensack, 12 N.J. Tax 598, 609
(Tax 1992) (organization dedicated to provision of gynecological and
reproductive healthcare services to under-privileged mothers). This is not the
case here.
IV.
Finally, we address plaintiff’s argument that it satisfies the third prong of
the Paper Mill test because it is not conducted for profit.
In examining whether any organization is conducted for profit, we focus
on "whether charges are fixed with the obvious intention of yielding a profit."
Kimberley Sch., 2 N.J. at 37. When considering a school, specifically, we
consider:
A-0185-19T4
26
[T]he background and nature of the organization of the
school; the character and nature of the membership of
its board of trustees or other governing body,
particularly where former private owners are there
represented; the amount of its income as compared with
its costs of operation; the amount of any excess of
income over costs, and the actual and possible use of
such excess; the existence and extent of its accumulated
surplus and the purpose to which it may be put; and the
amount of tuition charges as compared with those of
similar schools; the scale of salaries paid to its teachers
and officials as compared with similar schools, public
as well as private; and the many other factors bearing
upon the ascertainment of the dominant motive in the
conduct of the school which need not now be detailed.
[Id. at 38.]
In Paper Mill, the Court stated that this court should not look solely at an
organization's net income, but should engage in "a pragmatic inquiry into
profitability [and] a realistic common sense analysis of the actual operation of
the taxpayer[.]" 95 N.J. at 521. The statute does not require that the
organization operate at a loss or that it cannot achieve a surplus. Ibid. One of
the critical factors "is where the profit goes. . . . 'If we can trace it into someone's
personal pocket . . . the [organization] is not entitled to tax exemption.'" Id. at
522 (citing City of Trenton v. N.J. Div. of Tax Appeals, 65 N.J. Super. 1, 12
(App. Div. 1960)).
A-0185-19T4
27
Here, nearly all factors in the record support plaintiff's arguments that it
does not operate or use its property for profit. Nearly all of its employees are
volunteers and its bylaws provide that, upon dissolution, it will dispose of its
assets to other 501(c)(3) organizations. It operates at a loss most years and,
when it does make a profit, it uses the excess income in subsequent years for
organizational purposes. There is nothing in the record that demonstrates that
its profit went into the personal pockets of anyone in the organization.
Although we accept plaintiff's argument that it does not operate for profit,
we affirm the grant of summary judgment to the Borough based on plaintiff's
failure to satisfy the first two prongs of the Paper Mill test and the statutory
requirement that the property contain buildings.
Affirmed.
A-0185-19T4
28
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
