Case Title: State Ex Rel. Cook v. Rose

Citation: 299 S.E.2d 3

Docket Number: 

State: west-virginia

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 1982-12-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
299 S.E.2d 3 (1982) STATE ex rel. Jerry W. COOK, Circuit Judge, et al., etc. v. Herschel H. ROSE, III, W. Va. State Tax Commissioner. No. 15627. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. December 9, 1982. *4 Daniel F. Hedges, Charleston, for relators. Michael G. Clagett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for respondent. George G. Guthrie, Spilman, Thomas, Battle & Klostermeyer, Charleston, for intervenor Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc. *5 W.T. Brotherton, Jr., Charleston, for intervenor Highland Hosp. Richard E. Tyson, Tyson & Tyson, Huntington, for intervenor St. Marys Hosp. HARSHBARGER, Justice: Petitioners are a circuit judge and probation officer. After at least four unsuccessful attempts to get indigent, troubled juveniles admitted to area hospital psychiatric units,[1] they came to us for mandamus. Are these and other hospitals that refuse to admit persons unable to pay; that are not used for charitable purposes; that hold property for profit: are they entitled to exemptions from taxation? Petitioners ask us to mandamus our tax commissioner to promulgate guidelines about charitable tax exempt status for hospitals consistent with W.Va. Const. art. X, § 1, and W.Va.Code, 11-3-9, viz, regulations that specifically require a meaningful volume of charitable services in all areas, especially for infants referred by a court, and that proclaim that services provided as quid pro quo for Hill-Burton or other federal funds do not qualify within such volume. The tax commissioner responded that he has already met his constitutional and statutory duties. W.Va. Const. art. X, § 1 mandates that taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the state. It contains several exemptions: "property used for educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes, ... may by law be exempted from taxation." (Emphasis supplied.) Our Constitution does not exempt property, but it empowers the legislature to create exemptions for certain types of property. In re Hillcrest Memorial Gardens, 146 W.Va. 337, 119 S.E.2d 753 (1961); State v. Kittle, 87 W.Va. 526, 105 S.E. 775 (1921). All property given a legislative exemption must be used primarily, directly and immediately for those enumerated purposes. Central Realty Co. v. Martin, 126 W.Va. 915, 30 S.E.2d 720 (1944); State ex rel. Farr v. Martin, 105 W.Va. 600, 143 S.E. 356 (1928). The legislature has delimited property eligible for tax exempt status in W.Va.Code, 11-3-9, State ex rel. County Court v. Demus, 148 W.Va. 398, 135 S.E.2d 352 (1964), and included in that list "any hospital not held or leased out for profit."[2]Reynolds Memorial Hospital v. Marshall County Court, 78 W.Va. 685, 90 S.E. 238 (1916). Therefore, a hospital may only be entitled to a property tax exemption for property not held or leased out for profit and used solely for charitable purposes. Reynolds Memorial Hospital v. Marshall County Court, supra; Central Realty Corp. v. Martin, supra. All tax exemptions are strictly construed against people claiming them. In re Hillcrest Memorial Gardens, supra; State ex rel. Farr v. Martin, supra; State ex rel. Miller v. Buchanan, 24 W.Va. 362 (1884). The legislature has commanded the tax commissioner: *6 W.Va.Code, 11-1-6, also compels the tax commissioner to prepare forms for assessors and give them instructions respecting their duties, to attain "a perfect assessment of all the persons and property, both real and personal, in this State subject to taxation." Finally, the last paragraph of the exemption statute, Code, 11-3-9, states that "[t]he tax commissioner shall, by issuance of regulations, provide each assessor with guidelines to insure uniform assessment practices statewide to effect the intent of this section." In fulfillment of his duties, the tax commissioner has produced a Guide for Assessors. The section on Property Exempt from Taxation includes the following instructions: Guide for Assessors, pp. 8-138-15 (1979). In addition, respondent submitted taxability rulings about hospital charitable exemptions from 1980 and 1982. These rulings cite Syllabus Point 5 of Reynolds Memorial Hospital v. Marshall County Court, 78 W.Va. 685, 90 S.E. 238 (1916): A hospital "not used or leased out for profit," but which devotes all of the proceeds arising therefrom to its maintenance and support, and deficits caused by expenses in excess of receipts are paid by *7 voluntary contributions, and no profit is sought or received by its owners, is property used for "charitable purposes," and may be exempted from taxation under section 1 of article 10 of the Constitution of this state, notwithstanding such hospital is not used exclusively for free patients, but its rules and regulations require payment of such of its patients as are able to pay, according to their circumstances and the accommodations they receive, and that no person has individually a right to demand admission, but all are admitted under certain reasonable rules and regulations. No patient in Reynolds was refused admittance because he could not pay. We recognized that free and below-cost services may be provided under reasonable rules and regulations. The tax commissioner's Ruling 82-2T, at p. 11, states: He made the following observations and comments in his ruling that Guthrie Memorial Hospital in Cabell County was not entitled to an exemption: Guide for Assessors, pp. 8-838-85 (1980). These rulings indicate factors considered by the commissioner to determine eligibility for tax exempt status. Yet, these loosely structured, unorganized directives cannot possibly guarantee uniformity of taxation. They are but a first step. Syllabus Point 1, Smith v. W.Va. State Board of Education, W.Va., 295 S.E.2d 680 (1982). The tax commissioner's mandatory duty to uniformly and equally enforce taxation *8 makes mandamus a proper remedy. "Moreover, where the right sought to be enforced is a public one in the sense that it is based upon a general statute or affects the public at large the mandamus proceeding can be brought by any citizen, taxpayer, or voter." (Citations omitted.) Smith v. W.Va. State Board of Education, supra 295 S.E.2d, at 683. Petitioners, as citizens and taxpayers, have a clear, legal right to relief. This court noted in 1884 that individual assessors cannot decide what property should or should not be exempt because this defeats uniform statewide practices. We grant petitioners' petition and require the tax commissioner to issue specific and clear regulations, guidelines, forms and instructions about determining tax-exempt status of property under Code, 11-3-9 and W.Va. Const. art. X, § 1. He is also mandated to assure their continuing enforcement. W.Va.Code, 11-1-2. We do not and may not tell the tax commissioner how to exercise his discretion in setting these guidelines, other than to reinforce his position that the constitutional standard for defining hospitals used for charitable purposes requires provision of free and below-cost services to those unable to pay, under reasonable rules and regulations. Writ granted. [1] Those hospitals have intervened: Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc., Highland Hospital, and St. Mary's Hospital. [2] Code, 11-3-9 emphasizes legislative intent in providing exemptions: "Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, however, no language herein shall be construed to exempt from taxation any property owned by, or held in trust for, educational, literary, scientific, religious or other charitable corporations or organizations, unless such property is used primarily and immediately for the purposes of such corporations or organizations."