Illinois Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Hospital Property Tax Exemption Law
Healthcare Alert | 1 min read
Sep 24, 2018
In the closely watched Oswald v. Beard case decided last Thursday, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of a 2012 law which grants a hospital charitable property tax exemption if the value of specified services or activities of the hospital equals or exceeds the hospital's estimated property tax liability for the year for which the exemption is sought. The Court rejected the Plaintiff's claim that because the law did not include the Illinois constitutional requirement that the hospital must demonstrate that the property was "exclusively used" for charitable purposes, the law was unconstitutional on its face.
The 2012 law was enacted in response to the Illinois Supreme Court plurality decision in Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue that Provena did not satisfy the Illinois constitutional requirement that its property was "exclusively used" for charitable purposes, because the "number of uninsured patients receiving free or discounted care and the dollar value of the care they received" were de minimus. The Court in Oswald concluded that although the 2012 law did not specifically require the hospital satisfy the constitutional "exclusive use" requirement, "the legislature intended to comply with this constitutional limitation."
Illinois hospitals can now confidently rely upon the 2012 law in seeking and maintaining property tax exemptions. However, the Illinois Supreme Court has made clear that property tax exemptions are to be granted under the 2012 law only if the hospital property is "exclusively used" for charitable purposes, and the value of specified services or activities of the hospital equals or exceeds the hospital's estimated property tax liability for the applicable tax year. Unfortunately, Oswald does not clarify the Provena ruling, leaving uncertainty of what standard applies to satisfy the "charitable use" test. Is the analysis based on the number of uninsured patients receiving free or discounted care and the value of that care? How will the Illinois Department of Revenue decide this critical question in its review of applications?
We will continue to monitor this and report as new developments arise.
For more information, please contact Stephen Moore.
Related People
Related Capabilities
Featured Insights

Healthcare Alert
Aug 3, 2026
Fixing the Emergency Refill Trap: What California’s AB 1587 Means for Pharmacies

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Jul 30, 2026
Should Text Messages be Considered “Calls” Under the TCPA? The Seventh Circuit Says No

Healthcare Alert
Jul 30, 2026
California Courts Sharply Curtail the MICRA Damages Cap in Nursing Home Litigation

Insights for Insurers Alert
Jul 30, 2026
Analyzing a Couple of Cases Involving Exclusions in D&O Policies

In The News
Jul 29, 2026
Hinshaw Authors Contribute Two Articles in Latest Edition of the CCFL Quarterly Report

Webinar
Jul 28, 2026
Cathy Mulrow-Peattie and Sabrina Janeiro Present on Legal AI Technology

In The News
Jul 27, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses How the Insurance Industry Contributed to the 2026 FIFA World Cup

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Jul 27, 2026
Compliance Guidance for the New Vermont Data Privacy and Online Surveillance Act (VDPOSA)

Healthcare Alert
Jul 24, 2026
Q&A: Right to Electronic Monitoring Extended to Illinois Assisted and Shared Living Facilities

Press Release
Jul 23, 2026
Insurance Partner Christophe Burusco Joins Hinshaw in Los Angeles

In The News
Jul 16, 2026
Jennifer Driscoll Anticipates Epic Battle Between “Titans of the Antitrust Bar”


