Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue
236 Ill. 2d 368, 925 N.E.2d 1131, 339 Ill. Dec. 10 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To qualify for a charitable property tax exemption under Illinois law, a non-profit hospital must prove it is a charitable institution that uses its property for charitable purposes, which requires demonstrating that it derives funds mainly from charity, dispenses a significant amount of charity care without obstacles, and lessens a government burden, rather than merely operating as a fee-for-service business with minimal charity.
Facts:
- Provena Hospitals, a non-profit corporation affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church, owns and operates Provena Covenant Medical Center (PCMC) in Urbana, Illinois.
- For the 2002 tax year, approximately 96.5% of Provena Hospitals' total revenue was generated from 'net patient service revenue,' with PCMC receiving only $6,938 in unrestricted charitable donations.
- PCMC had a formal charity care policy, but did not advertise it in 2002 and required patients to complete an application to be considered for aid.
- In 2002, the actual cost of charity care provided by PCMC was $831,724, representing only 0.723% of its revenues for that year, and was less than the $1.1 million property tax liability at issue.
- Only 302 of PCMC's approximately 110,000 total inpatient and outpatient admissions (about 0.27%) received bill reductions under the charity care program.
- PCMC's standard collection practices involved billing patients, making follow-up calls, and referring unpaid accounts to collection agencies, which were sometimes authorized to pursue legal action.
Procedural Posture:
- Provena Hospitals applied to the Champaign County board of review for a property tax exemption for the 2002 tax year.
- The board of review recommended denial of the application.
- The Illinois Department of Revenue formally denied the application.
- Provena Hospitals paid the tax under protest and sought an administrative hearing.
- An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended that a partial exemption be granted.
- The Director of Revenue rejected the ALJ’s recommendation and issued a final decision denying the exemption.
- Provena Hospitals filed a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court of Sangamon County.
- The circuit court reversed the Director's decision, ruling Provena was entitled to the exemption.
- The Department of Revenue (appellant) appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
- The appellate court reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Department of Revenue's decision to deny the exemption.
- The Supreme Court of Illinois granted the petition for leave to appeal filed by Provena Hospitals (appellant).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-profit hospital that funds itself almost entirely through patient fees, provides a de minimis amount of free or discounted care, and aggressively pursues payment from patients, qualify for a charitable property tax exemption under section 15-65 of the Illinois Property Tax Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Karmeier
No. A non-profit hospital that operates primarily as a fee-for-service business with only a de minimis level of charitable activity does not qualify for a charitable property tax exemption. The court applied the six-factor test from Methodist Old Peoples Home v. Korzen and found that Provena Hospitals was not a charitable institution because its funds were not derived mainly from charity, it did not dispense charity to all who needed it, and it placed obstacles in the way of those who might seek its benefits. Furthermore, the property was not used exclusively for charitable purposes, as the primary use was providing medical care for compensation. The court reasoned that the minimal amount of free care was practically indistinguishable from a for-profit entity's bad debt write-offs and that shortfalls from Medicare/Medicaid do not constitute charity. Provena also failed to show how its operations lessened the financial burdens on the local taxing bodies.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Burke
No. Concurring in the judgment, the opinion agrees that Provena is not entitled to the exemption because it failed to meet its burden of proving that it, as the property owner, was a charitable institution; the evidence presented pertained only to one of its subsidiary hospitals, PCMC. However, the opinion dissents from the majority's reasoning regarding 'charitable use.' It argues that the majority improperly injected a 'quantum of care' or monetary threshold requirement into the statute, which is a legislative function, not a judicial one. Such a standard is unworkable and arbitrary. The dissent also contends that relieving disease and suffering is, by its nature, a lessening of the government's burden and does not need to be proven separately.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the definition of 'charity' for Illinois non-profit hospitals seeking property tax exemptions. By establishing that the quantity of free care matters and that operating like a for-profit business disqualifies an institution, the court shifted the standard from mere non-profit status to a functional test of charitable activity. This ruling set a high bar for hospitals, requiring them to demonstrate substantial, quantifiable charity to justify their tax-exempt status. The case prompted legislative responses and continues to influence the national debate on hospital tax exemptions and community benefit standards.
