Both the resident owner and the nonresident owner can take advantage of the exemption as long as the property is being used as a primary residence by someone. Plaintiffs respond that since any benefit conferred by the property tax exemption upon a nonresident landlord would be passed on to the renters in the form of lower rents, the nonresident owner would still not see the benefits of the exemption. More importantly, however, plaintiffs do not state the obvious corollary, which is that even if their argument were correct, it would apply equally to nonresident and resident landlords and, thus, equal taxation would still be achieved. Therefore, both resident and nonresident owners of residential property are treated equally. If anything, a Utah resident who owns residential property that is not used as a primary residence will pay additional property taxes to the State of Utah because the resident not only pays a tax on his vacation home but must also pay an additional tax on his primary residence.
Plaintiffs rely upon two cases that they assert mandate our acceptance of their position.
Plaintiffs' reliance on these cases, however, is misplaced. This court upheld the constitutionality of the statute in all respects. The court did make one brief statement regarding the application of article III, Second to the tax measure. Plaintiffs, however, read too much into the statement. We held only that article III, Second did not apply to the statute in question.