Case Name: East End Hospital, Appellant, v. Evatt, Tax Commr., et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1942-04-29
Citations: 139 Ohio St. 608
Docket Number: No. 29039
Parties: East End Hospital, Appellant, v. Evatt, Tax Commr., et al., Appellees.
Judges: Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 139
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
East End Hospital, Appellant, v. Evatt, Tax Commr., et al., Appellees.
(No. 29039
Decided April 29, 1942.)
Mr. E. G. Rarey, for appellant.
Mr. Thomas J. Herbert, attorney general, and Mr. Perry L. Graham, for appellees.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This case is in this court as an appeal from the Board of Tax Appeals. The action complained of is the denial of the application for exemption of certain personal property, consisting of X-ray equipment, from taxation for the year 1940. The ground upon which such application was based was that such X-ray equipment is property of "an institution used exclusively for charitable purposes."
The essential facts are not in controversy. The East End Hospital of Cleveland, Ohio, was incorporated in 1933 as a corporation not for profit. It is merely an operating company, having rented the building and equipment consisting of 45 beds, only 23 of which are used for patients, the rest being "for the help."
In 1935 the applicant purchased the complete X-ray equipment involved in this proceeding. The record discloses that this X-ray equipment is the only property owned by the applicant and there is no evidence indicating that it is or has been used for any charitable purpose.
It is well settled that the use of property exclusively for charitable purposes- is the criterion of exemption thereof. There is no presumption in favor of the ex- eruption of property from taxation, and before'such exemption is authorized the right thereto must be established by evidence, the burden of producing which is, of course, upon the applicant. The right to such exemption must be shown indubitably to exist. Cullitan, Pros. Atty., v. Cunningham Sanitarium, 134 Ohio St., 99, 16 N. E. (2d), 205
It follows that the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals denying the application for exemption is correct and is therefore affirmed.
Decision, affirmed.
Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.
Bettman, J., not participating.