WILL WILSON 

ATIXBRNEY GENERAL. 

January 7, 1960 

Honorable J..R. Owen 

Codity Attorney 

Yilllueon Cbunty 

Georgetown, Texa8 

Dear Nr. Owen: 

opinion Ilo. w-771 

Re: Whetlaer the S.P.J.S.T. Bert 

Hare In Taylor, Texas, 18~ 

exempt ,from taxation. 

Tour letter of Hovember 27, 1959, statee: 

“Kindly refer to your opinion number 

w-453. Subsequent to t4e tire that 

your above opinion was written, the 

Board of Directors of the Supreme Lodge 

of S.P.J.S.T. adopted a provision whereby indigent occupants would be accepted 

$2: S.P.J.S.T. Rest Home at Taylor, 

We are Intoned that at this tire 

there-axe no 100s charity patients at the 

Home, however, If any applied, they would 

be accepted. 

“Ye have further been Informed that the 

Home’s fee ~to lte patients is $lOO,OO per 

month, but that the Home now has several 

prtlen.te whose only source of income is 

old age ‘pension. These patients pay only 

$56.00 a month on the $100.00 fee and are 

thus partially oharity eases. 

“The Rest Home takes the poettlon that 

In view of the above facts it ha8 fulfilled 

the third requirement of your above referred 

to opinion. Our Commlssionerf8 Court ha8 

requeeted this office obtain a 8upplemeny 

tal opinion from you whether under these, 

clrcum8tances the property ie tax exempt.' 

(Yote: It Is assumed that the property referred to in 

the opinion requaat Is real property. Section 7 of Article 

7150, V.A.C.S., which exempts property belonging to lnstltutions of purely public charity, makes no mention of per8enal 

property; therefore, such property Is not exempt from tUatlOB. 

See Attorney Qeneralfr Opinion lo. O-5599.) 
Honorable J. R. Owen, Page 2 Opinion No. WW-771 

In holding that the S.P.J.S.T. Rest Home at Taylor, Texas, 

did not qualify for exemption as an lnetltution of purely 

public charity, Opinion No. WW-453 atated: 

“The Supreme Court of Texas, in City 

of Houston v. Scottlah Rite Benev, 

Assn., 230 S.U. 978, held that property 

Is exempt from taxation If It la both 

owned and used exclusively by an lnatltutlon of,publlc charity. The court 

further stated that an Institution was 

one of ‘purely public charity’ where, 

first, It made no gain or profit, second, 

it accomplished ends wholly benevo.lent, 

and third, It benefited persons, Indefinite 

In numbers and personaltiee, by preventing 

them, through absolute gratuity, from becoming burdens to the State. 

,“From the information that you have 

preaented, It Is apparent that the property 

In queetion is owned and ueed ;s;l;~;ely 

by the S.P.J.S.T. Reat Mome. 

Home conforms to the first two requirement0 

of a ‘purely public charity’ as set forth 

In the foregoing case, but fail8 to meet the 

third requirement. Since the Rest Home does 

not accept any resldent on a strictly charity 

baais, it does not benefit persons, Indefinite: 

In numbers and personalties, by preventing 

them, through absolute gratuity, lrom becoming 

burden8 to the State.” 

An institution may qualify a8 one of purely public charity 

when It dispenses ite service freely to persona in need of 

such serviceu, whether they can pay or not, though such a8 

are able to pay are expected to do 80. See City of Palestine 

v. Hlssourl-Pacific Lines Hospital, AssIn., 99 S Y 2d 311 

-CT Clv.App. 1936 error rel’d ) W . V . Geppert’ i Discussion 

6fekx Exempt Propkty In Texas, kylor Law Rev&w, Volume 

XI, No. 2 

patient8 & 

A tax exempt institution need not seek out its 

charitable ob,jects in the “highways and byways”. 

Raymondvilla Memorial Hospital, et al. v. State, et al., 253 

. . 1012 \Tex.Clv.App. 1952, ref. N.R.E.) 

You state In your letter that the S.P.J.S.T. Rest Home ie 

prepared to render service to charity cases on a strictly 

gratuitous basis, and that It Is actually rendering partially 

charitable services in that It receives payment only In accordance 
1 . 

Honorable J. R. Owen, Page 3 Opinion No. WW-771 

with the patient's ability to pay. Coneequently, It 18 the 

.oplnlon of this Office that the S.P.J.S.T. Re8t Home qualifies 

a8 an instltutlon of purely public charity, and that 18 real 

property i8 exempt from taxation. Thla opinion supersender 

Attorney General8 Cplnlon WW-453 (1958). 

SUMMARY 

'me real property owned by the 

S.P.J.B.T. Rcet Home 18 entitled to 

tax exemption since the Rest Home qualliles 

and 18 functioning a8 a "purely public 

charity." 

Yours very truly, 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

JBP:ca 

APPFt0VE.D :

OPINION COltnITTEE: 

1. V. Geppert, Chairman 

;ar;et;;v;;Gregor Payne 

C: Dian Daole 

Charles D. Cabanlss 

REVIEWBD FOR TRE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

By: Leonard Passmore