February 9, 1967 

Honorable Joe Resweber 

County Attorney 

Harris County 

Houston, Texas 

Dear Mr. R&weber : 

Opinion No. M-21 

Re: Tax statue of building 

owned by the Diocese of 

Oalveeton-Houston, Roman 

Catholic Church. 

In connection with your request for the opinion of this 

office on the above-captioned matter, you have furnished u6 

with numerous facts. The 

is known a8 the “Chanbery, 

pperty which occasioned your request 

located at 1700 San Jacinto Street, 

Houston, Texas. We quote the following excerpt from the Memorandum Brief which accompanied your request: 

“The Aseeeaor and Collector of Taxes, 

Rarrie County, Texas, by letter, furnished 

the following Information: 

“‘It is noted that the City of’ Houston 

has rejected the request for the bulldlng, known aa the Chanaery, which is 

used for the following purposes: 

t“(l) 

))'(2) 

"' (3) 

“‘(4) 

Office to conduct the necessary 

work of maintaining the Diocese 

of Galveston-Houston, including 

its seminary and orphanage; 

Office’of Superintendent of 

Catholic Schools of the entire 

diocese; 

Office of the Matrimonial Tribunal of the diocese; 

Offices for the Catholic Youth 

Organization, the Saint Vincent 

de Paul Society, the Confraternity 

- 86 - 
Honorable Joe Resweber, Page 2 (M-21) 

“I (5) 

“‘(6) 

‘I’ (7) 

‘of Christian Doctrine, the National 

Council of Catholic Men, the National 

Council of Catholic Women and the 

Diocesan Catholic paper; 

Meeting rooms for Catholic organizations; 

Residence of the Chancellor and 

three other priests; 

A chapel where religious services 

for the public are held .I” 

In the Memorandum B??lef which you have furnished us, you have 

concluded that the property in gueation is not entitled to an 

exemption from state and county ad valorem taxes under Section 

5 of Article 7150, Vernon’s Clvll Statutes. 

Section 2 of Article VIII of the Texas Constitution 

authorizes the Legislature to exempt certain classes and types 

of property from taxation. The pertinent provieions of this 

section read as follows: 

the Legislature may by general 

laws, eximl;t from taxation actual places 

or [of] religious worehlp, &o’any property 

owned by a church or by a strictly religious 

society for the exclusive use as a dwelling 

place for the ministry of such church or religious society, and which yields no revenue 

whatever to such church or religious society; 

provided that such exemption shall not extend 

to more property than is reasonably necessary 

for a dwelling place and in no event more than 

one acre of land; . . .” 

The following provisions of Article 7150, V.C.S., were 

enacted in pursuance to the above quoted authorization: 

:., 

“The foi‘iowing property shall be exempt 

from taxation; to-wit: 

“1 . Schoole and Churches -- Public 

School houses and actual places of religious 

- 87 - 

. 
. . 

,Iionorable Joe Resweber, Page 3 (M-21) 

worship, also any property owned by a church 

or by a strictly religious society, for the 

exclusive use as a dwelling place for the 

ministers of such church or religious society, 

the books and furniture therein and the grounds 

attached to suah buildings neaeasary for the 

proper occupancy, use and enjoyment of the same, 

and which yields no revenue whatever to such 

church or religious society; provided that such 

exemption as to the dwelling place for the minlstars shall not extend to more property than Is 

reasonably necessary for a dwelling place and 

In no event more than one acre of land . . . .‘I 

An additional provision for exemption is contained in 

Article 7150b, V.C.S., whioh reads as follows: 

“There Is hereby exempted from taxation any property owned exclusively and in 

fee by a church for the exclusive use as a 

dwelling place for the ministry of such church 

and which property ylelde no revenue whatever 

to such church; provided that such exemption 

shall not extend to more property than is reasonably necessary for a dwelling place and in ‘5 

no event more than one acre of land; and provlded further, that the fact that the ministry 

uses a portion of the dwelling as their study, 

library or office shall not prevent the property 

from being considered as being used exclusively 

as a dwelling place. For purposes of this Act, 

‘church’ includes a strictly religious society; 

and the ‘ministry of such church’ means those 

persons whose principal occupation is that of 

serving In the clergy, ministry, priesthood or 

preebytery of an organized church or religion, 

c whether they are assigned to a local church 

,parish, w-wwgue , cathedral or temple or to 

some larger unit of the church organization and 

whether they perform administrative functions 

or not. ” 

In reaching your conclusion that exemption should be 

,denied, you make the following statement: 

- 88 - 
honorable Joe Resweber, Page 4 (M-21) 

“The property in question and the organii zition occupying same is in many respects 

similar to the property for which an exemption from State and County ad valorem taxaWe do not regard Daughters of St. Paul, Inc., as decl- 

‘sive of the question here under consideration. In that case 

the court was concerned with whether a building owned by a 

,non-profit corporation whose prlmary purpose was distribution 

of Roman Catholic literature and religious articles principally 

by sale but also by gift to the general public was exempt from 

ad valorem taxes. The building was used exclusively by the corporation for sale of books and for nuns’ living quarters. The 

court held that, under the facts, the property waa not exempt 

as an “institution of purely public charity” within the meaning 

of that phrase as it is used both in Section 2 of Article VIII 

of the Texas Constitution and Section 7 of Article 7150, V.C.S. 

Since there la a chapel In the Chancery where religious 

services for the public are held, we think different provisions 

of both the Constitution and the statutes ars applicable, to-wit: 

the provisions for “actual places of religious worship.” We 

assume that In order for religious services for the public to be 

held, the Roman .Cathollc liturgy and ritual la practiced 

regularly in the Chancery, that 10 is open to the public and 

meets all requirements of canon law relative to churches. It IS 

certainly not uncommon for churches to have rooms available for 

other church activities In addition to the sanctuary. The other 

activities which you have described and which are being carried 

on in the Chancery are not inconsistent with work of the Church, 

and we do not think that the fact that they are carried on In 

the same building which houses the actual place of religious 

,worship results in a loss of the tax exemption. 

We are further of the opinion that the Chancery might 

well be exempt under the provisions of Article 7150b, which 

specifically provide that the “ministry of such church” includes 

persons serving in the clergy, ministry, priesthood or presbytery of an organized church or religion, and further specifically 

provide that they need not be assigned to a local church parish 

in order to qualify for the exemption, but may be aaelgned to 

.‘,.‘~ “~sople ,larger unit of the church organieation, as is true in the 

ease here under consideration. 

- 89- 
c . 

Honorable Joe Resweber, Page 5 (M-21) 

We do not think that the fact that the Chancery is not 

used exclusively as a dwelling place by the Chancellor would 

preclude exemption. It seems clear that the Legislature intended 

that the living quarters for the ministry of a church were to 

be exempt; so we cannot see that If a parsonage were attached 

to a church It would lose its exempt status as not being used 

"exclusively" as a dwelling because of the church, or that 

the church would lose Its exemption as an actual place of rellglous worship because of the parsonage. 

Analogous reasoning was used in Attorney Qeneral's 

Opinion No. O-4909 (1943), which held that a school which contained a chapel was exempt from ad valorem taxes, We quote 

the following from page 2: 

"Clearly the property in question is 

tax exempt unless It be decided that the use 

of the chapel for religious exercises, In 

addition to the use of the entire building 

for school purposes, destroys the exemption. 

The building if used exclusively for either 

purpose would be tax exempt and we are not 

prepared to hold that the concurrence of the 

two exempt uses renders the property liable 

to taxation. " 

Attorney General's Opinion No. O-6211 (1944) held exempt 

from ad valorem taxes a building owned by a church situated on 

the same tract of land as the church building and dwelling place 

of the minister. The hall in question was used for "parish 

meetings, meetings of Catholic Societies, Maternity Guild, 

Catholic Action, Catholic organizations, Catholic Union of Texas, 

religious instruction to children, socials; plays and once to 

twice yearly picnic dinners and dances are held;" 

In holding, as we do, that the Chancery is exempt from 

ad valoreti taxes, we specifically limit our holding to the 

partl,cularfacta submitted for our consideration. 

SUMMARY 

Under the submitted facts, the building 

known as the "Chancery" owned by the Diocese 

of Galveston-Houston, Roman Catholic Church, 

- 90 " 
Honorable Joe Resweber, Page 6 (M-21) 

is exempt from ad valorem tax. Section 

2, Article VIII, Texas Constitution; 

y+cp; 7150 and 7150b, Title 122, Ch. 

) . . . 

Ycp@s very truly, 

C. MARTIN 

General of Texas 

Prepared by Marietta McGregor Payne 

Assistant Attorney! General 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

Hawthorne Philllps, Chairman 

W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman 

Arthur Sandlin 

Ralph Rash 

Malcolm Quick, 

Kerns Taylor 

Staff Legal Assistant 

A. J. Carubbi, Jr. 

- 91 -