Skip to main content
· 7/12/2024

William W. Backus Hospital v. Stonington

Citations

  • 349 Conn. 713

Syllabus

Pursuant to statute (§ 12-66a), the following property may be taxed by a municipality provided such property is ''held by or on behalf of a health system, as defined in section 19a-508c,'' even if it is otherwise exempted from taxation: (1) real property that ''is acquired by a health system on or after October 1, 2015, that, at the time of such acquisition, is subject to taxation''; and (2) ''any personal property incident to the rendering of health care services at the real property described in subdivision (1) . . . .'' The plaintiff hospital appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant town's board of assessment appeals. The board had upheld 714 SEPTEMBER, 2024 349 Conn. 713 William W. Backus Hospital v. Stonington the town assessor's denial of the plaintiff's applications for personal property tax exemptions in connection with the town's 2020 and 2021 grand lists. In those applications, the plaintiff claimed that certain per- sonal property that it used for the provision of outpatient rehabilitation services was exempt from taxation pursuant to the statutory (§ 12-81 (7) or (16)) charitable or hospital tax exemptions. Although the plaintiff, which is owned by B Co., has its principal location in the city of Norwich, the personal property at issue was located at a rehabilitation facility that the plaintiff operated in the town. The sole member of B Co. is H Co., which is a health system, as defined by statute ((Supp. 2024) § 19a- 508c (a) (5)). The plaintiff's rehabilitation facility is located in a suite that it subleased from H Co., and the suite is in a building that H Co. leases from the building's owner. The parties filed separate motions for summary judgment. Although the plaintiff claimed that the personal property at issue was exempt from taxation under § 12-81 (7) or (16), the town claimed that it was taxable pursuant to § 12-66a. The trial court agreed with the plaintiff and disagreed with the town. The court reasoned that, although t

Judges: Robinson; McDonald; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Elgo

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.