Supervisor of Assessments v. Vestry of Salisbury Parish Corp.

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Supervisor of Assessments of Wicomico County, the appellant, appeals from an order of the Circuit Court for Wicomico County which affirmed, without an opinion, an order of the Maryland Tax Court holding that certain real property, hereinafter described, owned by the Vestry of Salisbury Parish Corporation, the appellee, was exempt from taxation. The order of the Tax Court in turn affirmed the decision of the Property Tax Assessment Appeal Board for Wicomico County which held that the subject property was exempt from taxation under Md. Ann. Code Art. 81, § 9 (d), which provided that the following were exempt: "Property owned by persons or religious groups and actually used exclusively for the burial of dead persons, and property owned by a cemetery or mausoleum company and used for the burial of dead persons which company is not operated for pecuniary profit and which does not accumulate profits for any purpose other than the maintenance or improvement of the property.” 1 Under Art. 81, § 229 (o), the "circuit court ... shall affirm the Tax Court order if it is not erroneous as a matter of law and if it is supported by substantial evidence appearing in ¹³³ the record.” See, Comptroller v. Diebold, Inc., 279 Md. 401, 407 , 369 A.2d 77 (1977); Comptroller v. Machiz, 42 Md. App. 218, 225 , 399 A.2d 946 (1979). The relevant facts are those presented at the hearing before the Tax Court.

See, Md. Ann. Code Art. 81, § 229 (o). Although the appellee was advised prior to the hearing that the Tax Court, in making its decision, would consider only the evidence presented before it and that, if the appellee did not appear, all the evidence favorable to the appellee might not find its way into the record, the appellee chose not to appear at the hearing. As a result, the only evidence presented was that submitted by the appellant; that evidence showed that the subject property was a parcel of land of approximately 1 acre, improved by a two story house, which was located contiguously to a cemetery owned by the appellee and which was used as the residence of the cemetery caretaker. There was no evidence that any burial had occurred on the subject property or that any was contemplated.

There was no evidence in the record which showed the subject property was used in any way as a part of the cemetery. We see no