GERAW,

.C. MANN'. ,AUSTXNSI. -cl

., .

Honorable~

Ti 'M./Trimble<. First Assistant State Superintendent Austin, Texab

Dear Sir: . O&non No..C+43 Whether property :ofSarah B. Mi,lroy

Hospital is exempt from taxation.
We.are'-.in,

receipt'.of

your ietter'.of

July .18,199’

. &whereinyou requestsour'opin$on'as $o:whether the Sarah ~B.Niiroy.Hospital. is hxempti 'fromthepayment of texes to.the Brenham&dependent Sdhool D.i&.l?ict'npon its properties;YUnder.the.facts.whichyou submi,t

to. usj:'the

Sarah D. Piilroy

Hospital .Is:a'Texas~.cor*poration with capit&.~stockhaving a' p!ar.value'

a'nd'.~rganize,d.f?.r' private p*of$&. ’
.,
Art&le Fi,

Section 2 of the ,StateConstitution provides'&& "the Legislature~mayby.general laws exempt from taxation.......... institutions'-of'urelypublic charity; and all laws exempting property from taxation other than the above mentioned shall be null :and.

void.".

Section 7 of Article 7150, Revised Civil Statutes,.was enacted in pursuance~to the above constitutionalprovision, and the first sentence-thereofreads as .follows:

"Public charities. All buildings belonging to institutions of purely public charity, together with:the,:l,ands!belonging to and occupied by such institutionsnot leased or otherwise used with a view to profit, unless such rents and-profitsand all moneys and credits are appropriated by such institutions solely to sustainsuch institutions and for the benefit of the sick and disabledmembers and their familiesand the..:' burial of the same, or for th.e maintenance of persons when unable to provide for themselves,whether such persons are members of such institutionsor not....."

The fact that the institution in question does some charitable work is not sufficientto bring it within the exemption. Our courts have held that the work *purely" as used in Article 6, Section 2, of the Constitution, is intended to modify the word "charity"and not the word "public"~. Therefore, for an institu-Hon. T. M. Trimble, Page 2 o-u.43

tion to be one of "purelypublic charity," it must be:~one yhose T property is used wholly and exclusively for charitableplrposes. B.P.O.E. Lodge No. 151 vs. City of Houston, 44 S.W. (2d) 488; City of Houston vs. ScottishRite BenevolentAssociation, 230 S.d. 978. As stated in Santa Rosa Infirmaryvs. City of San Antonio, 259 S.b+i. 926, by the Commission of Appeals, Section 2 of Article 8 of the Constituion expresslymakes null and void all exemptions attempted thereunder by the Legislature unless authorized by the constitutionalprovision ,itself.. :It.isnot. made mandatory that the Legislature shall extend the exemption but the constitutionalprovision is only an authorization to do
so. As shown in the aoove quotation, the statute does not attempt to extend the exemption to buildings and land belonging to an institutionwhere ~.the same is used with a view to profit. This precludes fromthe exemption the property of a corporationwhere distributableearnings in the shape of dividends upon the,stock of the corporation are to accr.ue. See Santa Rosa ,I.nf.irmaryvs. City of San Antonio,:supra. Exemptions from taxationare uot favored and.in order for a.perso.n'to receive,'the

oenefit.s

of such exemption~theburden,is upon him.to show that~his.property clearly comets

with,inthe same. B;:. Pi 'O?'E.Lodge ,No..l51vs. City ofHouston, supra.; .SantaRosa Infirmaryvs. City of San Antonio; 'supra. Under the facts submittedto us, the property of the Sarah B. Milroy Hospital is not exempt from the payment of the school taxes.

Yo& ye+y truly

ATTORNEY GENBRAL OF-TEXAS

GRL:N

APPROVEU &JL:31,~1939; BY GlennR. Lewis Assistant

W..F. MOORE‘

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL-