Ron. PaulT. Bolt

County Attorney TravisCourity Auetln, Texas

Dear Sir: opinionNo. 0-1474 Re: Whether certain real property owned and used exclusivelyby Seton Inflmary of Austin, lbxas, is exempt from Taxation under the laws of this State.

We are in receipt of your letter In which you. rem*-Tst

an opinion of this 'Departmentas to vhether Certain property~owi63by Seton IhfX:rmarg"ls'ex6mpt from taxation under the lavs'of thla"State: The'facta appear tb be.'that ti house is located'on~thegrounds ~ofSeton Infirmaryvhlch
was fokmerlyused as's nurses' home. During the l&at severa1years this property was used as a-home for the caretaker of the premises of Seton Infllmary. It seems that Seton InfiXXIarg

receives po rent from the caretake~r but just furnishes the house to him as a home free.

An examlnatlon'of the factsreveals that the operations of Seton Infirmary bring It within the classlficatlon n* a tax exempt hospital as set out by the Commission ofAppeals **of** Texaa, SectionA, in the case of SantaRosa Infirmary vs. Citg~of SanAntonio, 259 S. W. 926. We do not set out the facts relating to the operation of Seton Infirmary since they are practically Identicalwith thoae of Santa Rosa InfLrmarg as set forth in that case. That is the leadfng
case explaining whichhospitals are exempt from taxation in thFs State. This exemption la based uponArticle 8, Section 2 of our Constltutlon which reads in part as follows:

"TheLegislature may, by general laws, exempt from taxationpublic property used forpublFc purposes;...'

The exemption Is also based uponArticle 7150, Section 7 of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, which &ads. -

Ron. Paul. T. Holt, Page 2. (O-1474)

as fOl:GWS:
"Allbuildings belonging to Institutionsof purelypublic charity, together with the landsbelonging to and occupiedby such institutionsnot leasedor otherwise used with a view to profit, unless such rents and pr-cfits and all moneys and credits are appropriatedby such institutionssolely to suataln such institutIonaand for the benefit of the sick and disabled members and their families and the burial of the same, or for the maintenanceof personswhen unable to provide for themselves,whether such persons are members of such Institutions or not. An inetltution of purely public charity under this article is one whLch disperses Its aid to its members and others in slckness or dls+ess, or at death, without regard to poverty or riches of l

"herecipient, also when the funds,propertyand assets of such institutionsare placed and boundby its laws to relieve, aid and administer In any way to the relief of itsmembers when in want, sickness and distress,and provide homes for its helpless and dependent members and to educate andmaintain the orphans of Its deceasedmembers or other persons."

In discussing the above exemption the court in the SanAntonio case stateda8 follows:

"Thereis no claim here that any part of thehospital bul.idrng

was leased out Fn the ordinary sense,hut it is insistedthat, because the major par% of the yooms ic the hospital xzw used to take care of pay patients,and because surgeons,not themselves engaged whoZ~1.y in a charltable.,work,

were permltted to use theoperatlngrooms for ce?- taln fixed charges imposed up>n their patrons able to p.59, a~n3 because n certainward was devoted %o the charltsble work of S+. Luke's Clinic, and because the dlspensszy n? small drug store in the building sold drugs tc its pay patients for a profit, the use of the propertyby the SLsters of CharLty became thereby nonexclusive by them, and also .deprivedthe organizationof its characteristicas a pureig public charity. The Constitution does not In terms require
a charitable inetltutlon, If it may claim exemption f?l'om taxation, to use Its buildlngs exclusively TcI- charitable purposes,as it does require in the case of educational institutionsthat they be used exclusively To? educational purposes,but the -equirement is only that the Yuildlngs be useo by the chal-itable Instltutlon, as herttofore pointed out.”Hon. Paul T. Rolt, Page 3. (O-1474)

This case sets up two requlrememts for the exemption from taxation of property of such a dharltable lnstltuMon. One, the property must be ownedby the organlzRt.+mrl claiming the exemption; two, the propertymust bc exclusively used by said organization. The faots in your case show that Seton Infirmary owns the property and the only question Is whether or not the property which ia furnishedto the caretaker of the premises as a home, is being exclusivelyused by the organization. It is the opLnFon of thisDepartment that It Is so being used.

We think it nomore than reasonable that a hospital of the size of Seton Infirmary shouldhave a'caretaker and overseerWho resides on the premises to see that the same are not dlsurbcd and are kept in good condition. S&ton Infirmary charges the caretaker with no rent for the use'of the property. Of necessity, the use bf the hom&,waa considered as part of the caretakers compensation. What
ever savings come fromhaving this property for the use of the caretaker results to Seton Infirmary itself.

If is the opinion of thisDepartment, therefore, that this proptrty of Seton Inflnnary vhich'is used as a home for the caretaker on the premises Is tax exempt.

Yours very truly,

ATTORNEY QENERAL OF TEXAS

By: /a/Billy Goldberg

Billy @oldberg Assistant

Bff :pbp-dhs

APPROVED NOVEMBER 20, 1939
/a/Gerald C

. Mann

ATTORIEY OENERAL **OF** TEXAS APPROVED OPINION COMMITTEE