DAN MORALES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

QBffice of tty Bttornep Qheral 

&Mate of Qexae 

November lo,1993 

Mr. Ray Farebee Opinion No. DM-272 

vichMcellor8ndGenerslcounsel 

05ce OfGeneral counsel Re: Whether, under section 11.11 of the 

TheUnksityofTexas System Tax Code, the M.D. Anderson Cancer 

201 west !kventh street Center Jesse H. Jones Rotary House 

Austin, Texas 78701 Jnternationaliexemptfivmrdrplorem 

taxation and related question (RQ-593) 

Jhr Mr. Farabee: 

On behalf of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas System (the 

“board”), you have ssked us to determine whether the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center 

Jesse H. Jones Rotary House International is exempt fkom cul v&rem taxation under 

section11.11 oftheTwCode. Weconcludethatitis. 

Reasoning “that cancer is causing four thousand (4,000) deaths annually in Texas, 

thatmanyofthe~~soafflicted~indigentpasons,thatthaeism,rdequate 

provision made in this State for the study of the cause, prevention, or cure of cancer, and 

that there are no State institutions devoted thereto,” the 1egislature created the hospital 

that now is denominated The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (the 

“Cancer Center”) in 1941. See Acts 1941.47th Leg., ch. 548, at 878. Cummtly, chapter 

73, a&chapter C of the Education Code provides for the Cancer Center. Seotion 73.102 

of the Education Code states that the Cancer Center end its substations1 “shall be devoted 

tothediagno~tea&ingstudy,prevenGon,and tmatment of neoplasti~ and allied 

diseases.” Sections 73.110 end 73.111 of the Education Code authorize the board to 

accept gifts snd gmnts of money for the benefit of the Cancer Center and its substations. 

You state that the Jesse H. Jones Rotuy House International (the “Rotary House”), which 

opened in February 1993, was constructed on Jands the board owns end was built Tom 

. 

p. 1416 
Mr. RayFarabee - Page 2 (DM-272) 

gifls of eight million dollars from the Rotary Club of Houston and the Houston 

Foundation, in addition to nine million dollars that the board raised through the issuance of 

revenue bonds. We understand that the board owns the Rotary House. 

You have included with your letter a statement from Michael J. Best, Chief 

Fiicial Officer of the Cancer Center, and a brochure promoting the Rotary House. 

Mr. Best describes the Rotary House as a “patient housing center” where a Cancer Center 

patient and the patient’s fknily may stay while the patient is undergoing treatment at the 

Cancer Cmta. Guests of The University of Texas Systems (“The Unkmity”) also may 

stay at the Rotary House. Mr. Beat explains: 

Promotion and marketing of the Rotary House is confined to 

publicizing its services to [Cancer Center] patients and their guests 

and to guests of the University. . . The Rotary House does not 

actively seek business Sam the public at large. . . Our experience 

since opening to our guests on February 13.1993[.] reflects that only 

patients, their hmilies[,] and University of Texas visitors have been 

guests at the Rotary House. 

Mr. Best also states the room rates at the Rotary House are below market rates for 

comparable lodging. Fiiy, Mr. Best states that no rooms are leased on a long-tam 

baais to employees and that no permanent residents stay at the Rotary House. 

The promotional brochure points out several special features of the Rotary House: 

-The Rotary House is connected to the Cancer Center by an 

overheadwaUway’andcoveredgardenwalk. TheRotaryHouse 

also provides wheelchair-equipped tmnspotion to the Cancer 

Cults. 

-All rooms accommodate wheelchairs and medical equipment. 

-Every room is equipped with a refrgerator, microwave, dishes, 

dishwasher, iron, and ironing board. Laundry facihties are available 

in the building. 

-The television in every room is linked to the Cancer Cent&s 

closedcidttelevisionchannelssothatpatimtsandfamiliescan 

watch patient educational programs in their rooms. 

p. 1417 
Mr.RayFarabee - Page 3 (DM-272) 

-The Rotary House has a PatienVFamily Learning Center, 

wherepatientsandfamilymanbasurnleamtoweforthanselves 

anddealwiththeirihness. 

-The Rotary House offers patient and family education classes; 

itbb9avidwtapelibraryof~can~ctionaltapesthat 

ptiClltSMdfh&lieSUlilyVi~iIltheirroomS. 

-The Rotary House offers planned social actkities, including 

cmfl-making clsssea, shopphlg and RcreationsJ trips, and support 

groups;it~~~letothepatiartsMdbrmiliesits~cand 

game room, leisure liirary, counAiq services, and chaplains. 

Article VIII, section 2(a) of the Texas Constitution authorizes the legislature to, 

“by general laws, exempt from taxation public property used for public purposes.” See 

UnitedStotes v. 120,000 Acres of Land, 50 F. Supp. 754,755 (N.D. Tex. 1943) (stating 

that azticle VIII, section 2 requires public property to be devoted to public use); C~(Y of 

San Antonio v. Son Antonio In&p. Sch. Dia., 535 S.W.2d 671.675 (Tex. CN. App.-El 

Paso, writ refd n.r.e.), &‘d, 550 S.W.2d 262 (1976) (stathtg that article VIII, section 2 

refers to ad w&rem taxes). Pumant to the authority article VlD, section 2(a) grants it, 

see 21 J. HOwELL, PROPERTY TAXES 8 200, at 130 (1975) (stating that article VT& 

section 2 simply grants legislature power to exempt public property used for public 

purposes), the legislature has enacted section 11.11 of the Tax Code, which provides in 

putinent part as follows: 

. 

(a) Except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c) of this 

section, property owned by this state or a political subdivision of this 

state is exempt fi-om taxation if the property is used for public 

PUrpo=s. 

(b) [patainiag to land Permanent Unkrsity Fund owns] 

(c) [Pert&ingtoagriculturalorgrazinglandacountyownsfor 

the ba& of public schools] 

(d) Proper& owned by the state that is not used for public 

purposes is taxable. Property owned by a state agency or institution 

is not used for public purposes if the proper& is rented or leased for 

compmsationtoa~ebusinessentaprisetokusedbyitfora 

purpose not related to the performance ofthe duties and tlmctions of 

the state agency or insdmtion or used to provide private residential 

housing for compensation to members of the public other than 

students and employees of the state agency or institution owning the 

p. 1418 
Mr.RayFarabee - Page 4 (Di-272) 

property, unless the residential use is secondary to its use by an 

educfdional institution primarily for instructional purposes. , . 

(e) It is provided, however, that property that is held or 

dedicated for the support, maintenance, or be&it of an institution of 

higher education as de&d in Chapter 61. Texas Education Code> 

but is not rented or leased for compenmtion to a private business 

enterprise to be used by it for a purpose not related to the 

pdormancc of the duties and functions of the state or institution or 

is not rented or leased to provide private residential housing to 

members of the public other than students and emphq%es of the state 

or ktitution is not taxable. Footnote added.] 

You state that the Harris County Appraisal District (the “appraisal district”) has cancelkd 

the tax exemption on the Rotary House pursuant to section 11.11(e), based on the 

apprakl district’s position that the Rotary House provides “private residential housing to 

members of the public other than students and employees of the state or institution.” The 

bard, on the other hand, believes that the Rotary House is public property “used for 

public purposes,” thereby quah@ng for exemption 6om (d t&rem taxes under section 

11.1 l(a). We must determine, therefore, whether, to be exempt from cd wlorem 

taxation, property that an institution of higher education owns must satisfy the criteria 

articulated only in subsection (e), either in subsection (a) or (e), or in both subsections (a) 

and (e).r 

InitiaUy, we note that an exemption from taxation is to be strictly construed, and 

the language of the exemption must not be extended beyond the express requirements of 

the language used. Jones v. Williums, 45 S.W.Zd 130, 131 (Tex. 1931); 21 J. HOWELL, 

pRopERn TAXES § 198, at 126 (1975). See gem&b G. Hartt, IIJ, Ad V&rem T&es 

. 

p. 1419 
Mr.RayFarabee - Page 5 (DM-272) 

ami Non-P@ HeaM-Gve Facilities, 39 Tut. B.J. 864, 865 (1976). Thus, the pason 

chiming an exemption bears the burden of proving that the propaty or tmmaction falls 

within the ambit of the exemption. 21 J. HOWELL, srrgra. 8 198, at 126; G. Hartt, IIJ, 

spa, at 865. 

The legislature added subsection (e) to section 11.11 of the Tax Code in 1983. 

See Acts 1983,68th Leg., ch. 1007,§ 1, at 5419. As introduced in the House, House Bill 

2156 did not propose to add a subsection (e) to section 11 .l 1 of the Tax Code; rather, it 

proposed to amend section 11.1 l(a), (d) as follows: 

(a) Except as provided by Subsections (b) and (c) of this 

section, property owned by this state. [ef] a political subdivision of 

thisstate.p2:~~d~~ns~inscction 

61.003f7) nf t& &~8 M (&& is exempt from taxation if 

thepropatyisusedforpublicplrpoeespy~~~~~~ 

lslppQ&maint~Qt~QfminstihrtionQf~education. 

(d) Property owned by the state that is not used for public 

Purpo~NW9Idedicatedh2tb8~-maintenance.pC 

nf8g jnstitution efb&gJ r;ducation is taxable. m 8Jgf& w 

ownedbythestate.p~~nf~~[ageaey]or 

~institutionPfhjOhP&&28~~gg@fQL~~ 

dfpt&&&&QQ(&[:-]ifthe 

g&&8 ef &g property is rented or leased for compensation to a 

private business enterprise to be used by it for a purpose not related 

to the performance of the duties and fimctions of the state. p g~I&8! 

g&division’Qf~ 8t8& [eganay] or g8 instiMion g&g&&r 8dwxtion 

or used to provide private residential housing for compensation to 

members of the public other than students and employees of the 

state.8~8&&yi&8pf~~or~institutionpf~ 

education owning the property, unless the residential use is 

secondary to its use by an education institution primarily for 

instructional purposes. Any notice required by Section 25.19 of this 

code shall be sent to the agency or in&ution that owns the property, 

~ditshallllppearinbehalfofthestateinanyprotestorappcal 

related to taxation of the property. 

According to the bii analyms prepared for House Bii 2156. as introduced, the bii 

proposedtoamendsection11.11 oftheTaxCodeto”incM~theconceptthatproperty 

owned by an institution of higher education is exempt if used for a public purpose or is 

held or dedicated to the support, maintenance, or benefit of an insthmion of higher 

education and that property owned by ag insthution of higher education and not used for 

[either a public purpose or for the support, maintenance, or benefit of the institution] is 

p. 1420 
Mr.RayFarabee - Page 6 (DM-272) 

not exempt.” House Comm. on Ways and Means, Bii Analysis, H.B. 2156, 68th Leg. 

(1983); Senate Comm. on Fii, Bii Analysis, H.B. 2156. 68th Leg. (1983). 

Representative Turner, the author of the bii stated on the floor of the House that the 

purpose of the bill was to dispel some existing contusion regarding certain university lands 

bystatingthat~v~~landistaxableiftheuniversityrmtsorleasestheland;ifthe 

university does not rent or lease the land, and the university holds the land for a public 

purpose, the land is exempt tkom taxation. 6 Debate on H.B. 2156 on the Floor of the 

House, 68th Leg. (May 30, 1983) (statement of Representative Turner) (tape available 

kom House Committee Services OSice). 

While the Senate Committee on Finance discus4 the bii a senate committee 

member stated that the proposed amendments to subsection (a) would have the effect of 

exempting from taxation productive, incom~producing property belonging to a university. 

Id. Senate committee members therefore asked Senator Harris, the senate sponsor of the 

big, to prepare an amendment to the bill that would exempt 6om taxation only nonprofit 

property, thereby effectively limiting the class of productive, income-producing property 

of an institution of higher education that is exempt from taxation. Hearing on H.B. 2156 

Before the Senate Comm. on Fii, 68th Leg. (May 28, 1983) (statement of 

unidentiiied speaka) (tape available from Senate StatTServices). 

Consequently, Senator Harris introduced on the floor of the senate an amendment 

to the bii that proposed to amend section 11.11 of the Tax Code by adding subsection (e) 

(using language identical to the language currently found in section I 1.1 l(e)) instead of by 

revising subsections (a) and (d). Debate on H.B. 2156 on the Floor of the Senate, 68th 

Leg. (May 30, 1983) (statement of Senator Harris) (tape available from Senate StatT 

senices). The senate adopted the amendment. Subsequent to its adoption in the senate, 

Representative Turna explained the intent of the senate amendment on the floor of the 

house, indicating that the amendment only chnitied the “original intent of the bii in a little 

bit betta form”; it did not substantively modify the proposed bill. Debate on H.B. 2156 

on the Floor of the House, 68th Leg. (May 30, 1983) (statement of Representative 

Tuma) (tape available from House Committee Services Oflice). 

Based upon our review of the legisiative history, we conclude that section 11.11 of 

the Tax Code by its terms exempts from od dorem taxation property that an institution 

of higha education owns if the property either saves a public purpose, see Tax Code 

p. 1421 
Mr,RayFarabee - Page 7 (DM-272) 

~Il.ll(a),orisheldforthe~upport,maintmana,orbeneMoftheinstiturig~eid. 

5 11 .l l(e). However, since article VfII, section 2(a) of the Texas Constitution authorizes 

the legislature to exempt from taxation public property only if the property is used for a 

public purpose, public property that is exempt pursuant to subsection (e) because it is held 

for the support, maintenance, or benefit of an institution of higha education is exempt 

only to the extent that the property is used for a public purpose. 

Subsections (d) and (e) of section 11.11 explicitly stipulate particular uses of 

public property that do not serve a public purpose. Subsection (d) specifically provides 

that state-owned property does not serve a public purpose “if the properly is. . . used to 

povid priwte resi&ntial houdng for compensation to members of the public other lhrm 

stuhts cad empfqvees of the state agency or ktitution owning the property, unless the 

residential use is secondary to its use by an educational institution primarily for 

instructional pqoses.” (Emphasis added.) Similarly, subsection (e) specifically provides 

that propaty of an institution of higha education does not qualify for the exemption (and 

thus is not used for a public purpose) if the property is “rented or leased for common 

to a private business enterprise to be used by it for a purpose not related to the 

puformancc of the duties and timctions of the state or institution or is . rented or leased 

to provia?? priwte resiakntiol housing to members of the public other than stuhts ami 

emplwes of the state or institution”7 (Emphasis added.) No one disputes that the 

Rotary House is publicly owned; ultimately, we must determine. thaefore, whether the 

Rotary House serves a public purpose. The central issue in our determination is whether 

the Rotay House is used to prod& private residential housing to members of the public 

other than stuoknt.9 or employees of The University. If it is not so used, we must 

determine whether the property serves a public purpose. 

The Tax Code does not d&e “private residential housing,” and we are unaware 

of any other statutory provision that defines the phrase. Furthermore, the legislative 

history of section 11.11 (e) of the Tax Code does not indicate how the legislature intended 

to use the phrase. Howeva, the legislative history of subsection (d), which also uses the 

phrase “private residential housing,” provides some guidance as to the meaning the 

legislature intended to attach to the phrase. 

The legislature added subsection (d) to section 11.11 of the Tax Code by the 

enactment of House Bill 30 two years prior to the enactment of subsection (e). See Acts 

1981. 67th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 13. § 30, at 127. House Bii 30 of the S&y-Seventh 

p. 1422 
Mr. RayFaabee - Page 8 (DM-272) 

Legislature, 6rst called session, was, essmtidy, a reintroduction of House Bii 1465, 

which the legi&ture tabled during the regular session of the Sixty-Seventh Legislature. 

The house wmmittee substitute for House Bill 1465 proposed to add section 11.1 l(d) to 

provide in perknt part as follows: 

Property owned by the Texas State Technical InstiMe or the 

Texas Department of Corrections is not used for public purposes if 

the properly is used to provide housing for employees or their 

familiesor~manbasofthepublicothartbanstudentsofthe 

Texas State Technical hitiMe or inmates of the Texas Department 

ofcomxuons. [Emphasis added.] 

Rep- Peveto, the author of House Bii 1465, informed a subcommittee of 

the House Committee on Ways and Means that he was introducing this amendment to the 

original bii specifically for the Huntsville area. Format Meeting on H.B. 1465 Before a 

Subconunittw of the House Comm. on Ways and Means, 67th Leg. (Apr. 21, 1981) (tape 

available from House Committee Services O&e). He explained that both the Texas 

Department of Corrections and the Texas State Technical Institute (“TSTI”) owned some 

homes that they rented out to their employees or to members of the general public. Id. 

He stated that some members of the House Ways and Means Committee &it that such a 

rental of a home was not serving a public purpose; ratha, the rental served as a “revenue 

generator” for the govemmental body owning the homes. Id. Furthermore, according to 

Representative Peveto, the people who live in the rental homes send their children to 

school in the local school district, and they use city and county services; consequently, 

they should be paying property taxes on the homes they rent. Id. 

Representative Peveto’s comments indicate that the legislature was concerned 

primarily with the provision of housing to persons who plan to reside at the leased 

property long enough to take advantage of the local schools and city and county services. 

We note that the SiiSeventh Legkkre, during its 6rst called session, moditied the 

proposed section 11.1 I(d) to apply not only to the property that TSTI and the Texas 

Depatment of Corrections own that is “used to provide housing for employees or their 

fkmiks or for members of the public other than students. . or inmates,” but to property 

that any state agency or institution owns that is “used to provide private residential 

housing for compensation to member of the public other than students and employees.” 

Compure C.S.H.B. 1465,67th Leg., 8 23 (1981) wir% Acts 1981,67th Leg.. 1st C.S., ch. 

13,s 30, at 127. Despite the modiScations, we believe the legislature remained concerned 

about the kct that, at that time, members of the public who reap the be&its normally 

accorded to taxpayers. such as the use of the local schools, city services, and county 

savices, could rent homes on tax-exempt property owned by state agencies or institutions. 

We therefore construe “private residential housing” in both subsections (d) and (e) to 

mean housing in which certain membera of the public live longer than temporarily. 

p. 1423 
Mr.RayFanbee - Page 9 (DM-272) 

In determining whether property is being used to provide “private residential 

lmsing” within the context of section 11.1 l(d), (e) of the Tax Code, we believe that we 

must apply an anslysis similar to that used to determine whetha property is a “residence” 

for purposes of other statutes. Admittedly, “[t]he term ‘residence’ de&s easy definition.” 

Attorney General Opiion J&5-611(1986) at 2. The Texas Supreme Court has, howeva, 

provided some direction: 

The meaning that must be given to [the term “residence”] depends 

upon the kxmstances surrounding the person involved and largely 

depends upon the present intention of the individual. Volition, 

intention and action are all elements to be cotidered in determhdng 

whereapersonresidesandsuchekmentsareeqwllypertinentin 

denoting the pamanent residence or domicile. 

Mills v. Bartlett, 377 S.W.2d 636,637 (Tex. 1964); Attorney General Opiion JM-611 at 

2 (quotingMills. 377 S.W.2d at 637); see ako BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1176 (5th cd. 

1979) (detining “residence” as “persona) presence at some place of abode with no present 

intention of definite and early removal and with purpose to remain for undetermined 

period, not infrequently, but not neces&ly combii with design to stay permanently”); 

WBBSTBR’S NINTH NEW COLLBGIATB DICTIONARY 1003 (1990) (detlning “residence” as 

“the place where one actually lives as distinguished from.. a place of temporary 

sojounP); cf. Attorney General Gpiions JM-1223 (1990) at 4-5 (quoting, as example of 

proper construction of “residence,” Election Code section 1.015, which de&s 

“residence” for purposes of Election Code to mean “domicile, that is, one’s home and fixed 

place of habitation to which he intends to return atta any temporary absence”); TM-367 

(1985) at 3 (quoting Pews & N.T. I@. Co. v. lhmpson, 167 S.W. 801,803 (Tex. 1914)) 

(equating “residence” for purposes of Education Code with “domicile,” which means 

“living in [a particular locality] with the intent to make it a t&d and permanent home”). 

In general, the determination of one’s residence depends upon factual circumstances and 

individual intention; it is thacfore suitable for judicial detemnnation. Mih, 377 S.W.2d 

at 636. 

Thus, for purposes of section 11.1 l(d), (e) of the Tax Code, the determktion of 

whether certain proper&y is used as “private residential housing” “depends upon the 

circumstances surrounding the person involved and largely depends upon the present 

intention of the individual.” Id. at 637. While such a detemktion generally requires an 

exanktion of factual circumstances and individual intention, we believe that we may say 

as a matter of law that the legislature did not intend “private residential housing” to refa 

to a place, such as the Rotary House, which provides only temporary accommodations for 

patients at the Cancer Cmta and their fiunilies and for guests of the unkersity. We 

conclude that the Rotary House is not “used to provide private residential housing” in the 

context of section 11.1 l(d), (e) of the Tax Code. Next, we will consida whetha the 

Rotary House serves a public purpose. :’ 

p. 1424 
Mr. Bay Fanbee - Psge 10 (Dll-272) 

To determine whether public property is used for a public purpose, the Texss 

Supreme Court hss applied a test: whetha the property is used primarily for the health, 

comfort, and welfare of the public. A. &M. Consol. In&p. Sch. Dist. v. Ci@ of Bryan, 

184 S.W.2d 914,915 (Tex. 1945); Attorney General Opinion JM405 (1985) at 3. The 

proper& need not be used for govanmemal purposes; the property only must be such that 

all of the public hss a right to use it onda proper regulations. A. &MY Cd. Indep. 

sch. Dist., 184 S.W.Zd at 915. Furthermore, the tkt thst the governmen tal owna 

&ages or receives compensation for the use of the property does not mean thst the 

properly loses its exemption &rn ad t&rem taxation, provided that the chages sre 

iacidcntaltotheuseofthepropatyllndtheproceedsreceivedfortheuseofthepropcrty 

inure to the be&t of the gownmatsl owna. Id. at 915-16, see al.w Attorney Genersl 

Opiion JM-405 st 3 (citing Lower Cdo. River A&. v. ChemicaI Bank & Tv.s? Co., 190 

S.W.Zd48, SO(Tex. 1945);A. &M. cansal. Zdep.Sch. Dia., 184 S.W2dst915-16). 

You state that members of the medical profession often prescribe outpatient 

trmtmmt for persons d&nosed with aeopkstic dkeases, thereby reducing the costs to 

both the patient snd the hospital. A patient in a private hospital room at the Cancer 

Cmta pays $385 per day for the room, as opposed to S65-$85 per day for a room in the 

Rotary House.’ Additionslly, the Cancer Centa spent less to const~ct the Rotary House 

than it would have spent to ccmstruct additional hospii rooms; overbead expenw 

incured in operating the Cancer Centa slso are mch greata than overhead expenses 

incumd in operating the Rotary House. 

We believe thst the Rotary House aids the Cancer Centa in the sccomplishment of 

its purpose-the “diagnosis, teaching, study, prevention, end treatment of neoplastic snd 

died disases.” See Educ. Code 8 73.102. Additionally, you inform us that the Cancer 

Centa uses all incame derived from the Rotary House to hd its operations. In our 

p. 1425 
Mr. RayFarabee - Page 11 (DM-272) 

opinion, therefore, the Rotary House is used prhnarhy for the health, comfort, and welt& 

of the public, and satisties the Texas Supreme court’s test fix determkg whetha public 

propaty is used for a public purpose. See A. &M. Cansol. It&p. Sch. Dist.. 184 S.W.2d 

at 915. Because we have found that the Rotary House is not used to provide private 

residential housing and servea a public purpose, we cot&de that it is exempt from 

taxationprsuanttosc&n 11.11 oftheTaxCode. 

The chief appraiser of the appraisal district has asked us to determine whetha, if 

we conclude that the Rotary House is exempt from all ad w&rem taxation unda section 

ll.lloftheTaxCode,theMarriott’sinterestintheRotaryHouseistaxabletothelessee 

pumant to section 25.07 of the Tax Code. While the chief appraiser’s question is 

premised on his contention that the Mawiott Management Stices Corporation leases the 

Rotary House from the board, documents you have submitted indicate that the Marriott 

Management Services Corporation provides daily management of the Rotary House, but it 

does not lease the facility. Whether the Marriott Management Services Corporation has a 

leasehold intaest in the Rotary House or simply provides management services is a 

question of fhct that we cannot resolve in the opinion process. See Attorney General 

Opinion DM-98 (1992) at 3. Furthermore, this office does not construe contracts, 

Attorney General Opinion DM-192 (1992) at 10; consequently, we cannot examine the 

agreement between the Marriott Management Saviccs Corporation and the board to 

determine the Marriott’s interest in the Rotary House. But see Tax Code 8 25.07; Ci@ of 

Beaumont v. Fertitta, 415 S.W.2d 902,911 (Tex. 1967); Mmttn v. Ci@ of Mesquite. 590 

S.W.2d 793, 798 (Tex. Civ. App.-Dallas 1979, writ refd n.r.e.) (discussing V.T.C.S. 

articles 7173 and 7174, predecessors to Tax Code section 25.07, among otba sections of 

Tax Code); Attorney General Opiion M-3 19 (1968) at 5. 

SUMMARY 

Pursuant to section 11.11 of the Tax Code, property that an 

institution of higha education owns is exempt from taxation if the 

property either serves a public purpose, or is held or dedicated for 

the support, maintenanw, or benelit of the i&t&ion. To the extent 

that property that is held or dedicated for the support, maintenance, 

or benefit of the institution is not used for a public purpose, howeva, 

it is not exempt from taxation. Furthermore, section 11.11 specities 

that public property is not used for a public purpose if the property 

is, among otha things, used to provide “private residential housing” 

for members of the public other than employees or students of the 

ktitution. 

The determination of ,-whetha specitk property is used to 

provide “private residential housing” depends upon the circumstances 
Mr. Ray Farabee - Purge 12 (DM-272) 

sumding the person involved and bqely depends upon the 

present intention of the individual. Because the Jesse H. Jones 

Rotary House International provides only temporary accommodations for patients at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and their 

families~foTBuest8ofTheU~~ofTausSystans,hisnot 

used to provide private residential housiq for purposes of section 

11.1 l(d), (e) of the Tax Code. Additionally, the Rotary House is 

used primarily for the health, comfort. and we’re of the public; it is 

thaefore used for a public purpose. Consequently, the Rotary 

Houseisexrmptfromrdvalorenrtlucation~to~on 11.11 

of the Tax Code. 

DAN MORALES 

Attomey Genaal of Texas 

WILL. PRYOR 

Fii Assistant AttomeyGenaal 

MARYKELLER 

Deputy Attorney General for Litigation 

RENEA HICKS 

State Solicitor 

MADELEINE B. JOHNSON 

Chair, opinion Committee 

&pared by Kymberly K. OltrogSe 

Assistant Attorney Genaal 

p. 1427