site of numerous church functions and because canon law required the priest, who took a vow of obedience, to live in the rectory next to the church and “so he may be available at all times to attend to the needs of the parish.” Finally, in Washington County v. Dept. of Rev., 11 OTR 251, 253 (1989), in what it termed a “close question,” this court held taxable under ORS 307.140 a parsonage in which a pastor and his family lived, as they were required to do by the pastor’s religion. One room in the house, the study, was stipulated as exempt. Id. at 252. Similarly, the rest of the house was regularly and frequently used for religious activi venience of a religious official, and the benefits to the church were incidental, the property was held taxable. See Washington County, 11 OTR at 254 (<HOLDING>). Regarding the second prong of the German
holding an office exempt and the rest of the residence taxable holding parsonage taxable despite frequent religious use and requirement that parson live there because the primary purpose of the residence was to house the parson and his family holding that the appellant had not changed his residence from his registered address despite the fact that the house had never had electricity service during the time that he had lived there holding a parsonage taxable where the use of the property to accomplish religious purposes was only incidental or secondary to the primary purpose of providing a residence for the pastor and his family holding that defendant staying in abandoned house had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the house despite having a key to the house and the ability to let people in and out of it