Utah Court of Appeals

Must religious organizations prove federal tax-exempt status to avoid Utah unemployment insurance? Lowrey v. Workforce Appeals Board Explained

2011 UT App 240
No. 20100795-CA
July 29, 2011
Affirmed

Summary

Gregory Lowrey challenged the Workforce Appeals Board’s decision that wages paid to Jacklyn Johnson by his religious entity UBU Ministries were subject to unemployment insurance contributions. The Board affirmed an administrative law judge’s determination that UBU did not qualify for the religious exemption from unemployment insurance requirements.

Analysis

Background and Facts

Gregory Lowrey operated UBU Ministries, a religious entity that considered tattooing a core religious tenet, along with Happy Valley Tattoo. When employee Jacklyn Johnson filed for unemployment benefits, an administrative law judge determined her wages were subject to unemployment insurance contributions. Lowrey argued that Johnson was employed by UBU Ministries and that UBU qualified for the religious exemption from Utah’s unemployment insurance requirements.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether UBU Ministries qualified for the religious exemption under Utah Code section 35A-4-205, which exempts employment by churches only if such services are also exempted under federal law. The case also involved procedural issues regarding Lowrey’s failure to properly marshal evidence supporting the Board’s factual findings.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Court of Appeals applied strict construction to the statutory exemption, placing the burden on Lowrey to prove UBU’s entitlement to exemption. The court noted that federal law requires organizations to be exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Critically, Lowrey provided an IRS letter stating “We have no record that your organization has been recognized as exempt from Federal income tax.” The court held that simply asserting religious status was insufficient without proper documentation or independent proof of meeting statutory requirements.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that religious organizations seeking exemptions from state employment laws must provide concrete evidence of their federal tax-exempt status. Practitioners should ensure clients have proper IRS documentation before claiming religious exemptions. Additionally, the court’s application of the marshaling requirement demonstrates that appellants challenging agency decisions must address all supporting evidence, not merely assert contrary positions.

Original Opinion

Link to Original Case

Case Details

Case Name

Lowrey v. Workforce Appeals Board

Citation

2011 UT App 240

Court

Utah Court of Appeals

Case Number

No. 20100795-CA

Date Decided

July 29, 2011

Outcome

Affirmed

Holding

A religious entity claiming exemption from unemployment insurance requirements must provide documentation of federal tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3) or independently establish statutory requirements for exemption.

Standard of Review

Substantial evidence standard for agency findings of fact; strict construction for statutory exemptions with burden on claimant to prove entitlement

Practice Tip

When challenging agency decisions based on substantial evidence, appellants must marshal all evidence supporting the agency’s findings before arguing the findings are unsupported.

Need Appellate Counsel?

Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Related Court Opinions

    • Utah Court of Appeals

    In re K.K.

    March 30, 2017

    The juvenile court properly terminated Father’s parental rights based on unfitness where he failed to address substance abuse and domestic violence issues and continued a relationship with the children’s mother despite her unresolved problems that made her unsafe around the children.
    • DCFS and Child Welfare
    • |
    • Preservation of Error
    • |
    • Sufficiency of Evidence
    • |
    • Termination of Parental Rights
    Read More
    • Utah Court of Appeals

    Warner v. Warner

    January 24, 2014

    A district court may exercise inherent authority to correct misstatements in proposed orders regardless of procedural defects, and trustees who misstate court rulings in bad faith are not entitled to reimbursement from trust funds for resulting attorney fees.
    • Appellate Procedure
    • |
    • Attorney Fees
    • |
    • Standard of Review
    • |
    • Statutory Interpretation
    Read More
About these Decision Summaries

Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.