Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Exemptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to clarify ‘appertaining’ language in charity, church tax exemptions draws mixed views
Summary
House Bill 147 would replace the ambiguous term "appertaining" in the statute governing tax exemptions for religious, educational and charitable organizations with clearer language specifying that buildings and lots used for exempt activities are themselves exempt.
Representative Maureen Mooney introduced House Bill 147 on Feb. 4, proposing a textual clarification in RSA 72:23 and related sections by replacing the longstanding word "appertaining" with more specific wording such as "on the same lot" and a sentence stating that the "entire building and lot on which religious or any instance of educational or charitable activities are taking place shall be exempt from taxation."
Representative Mooney said the term "appertaining" has been interpreted inconsistently and the bill aims to give towns and exempt organizations clearer guidance. "House bill 1 47 is a clarifying bill that provides an explicit definition for the word appertaining," she told the committee.
Faith leaders and advocates urged passage. Father Rory Trainor, associate pastor for Saint Peter Parish, said ambiguous definitions have resulted in time-consuming municipal document requests and tax disputes over woodlands, cemetery buffers and rectory rooms. "Responses to these requests from municipalities are time consuming and can be expensive," Father Trainor said in testimony submitted on behalf of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester.
Local-assessing officials and municipal representatives urged caution. Jim Michaud, chief assessor for the town of Hudson, offered a historical perspective and warned that prior comprehensive rewrites of RSA 72:23 were intended to close loopholes and that piecemeal statutory changes risk unintended consequences. "This bill raises more questions than it does solve," Michaud said, and recommended a well-staffed bipartisan study commission to reconcile issues across pending bills rather than rapid statutory revisions.
The New Hampshire Municipal Association signaled concerns about several draft provisions that could broaden exemptions beyond current practice and recommended that new sections be explicit in preserving existing voluntary PILOT mechanisms under RSA 72:23‑n.
Attorney Michael Tierney, who has represented municipal and exempt organizations, testified the ambiguity has produced litigation; he recommended equal treatment across religious, educational and charitable exemptions and cautious drafting to avoid new disputes. Representative Julie Miles, a bill cosponsor, said the legislation aims for fairness and predictability for municipalities and exempt organizations.
Committee members and witnesses discussed practical examples — cemetery wooded buffers, separate buildings used only partially for exempt purposes and whether a broad "entire lot" rule could extend exemptions beyond the intended footprint. The committee collected written and oral testimony and did not vote at the hearing.
