Opinion ID: 2392136
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Implication of This Case

Text: It is important to recognize that the plurality opinion is narrower than my opinion, because it would impose an additional, primary purpose restriction on non-charitable and charitable income-producing activities engaged in by purely public charities seeking the ad valorem tax exemption under OCGA § 48-5-41. In other words, as I did in this case, any time the Justices in the plurality upheld a charity's tax exemption, I would as well, since I believe that the additional requirement does not exist. Accordingly, unless the Court changes course in a future case, the plurality opinion will be our effective precedent, governing the outcome of future cases raising this issue. This is unfortunate, in my view, as it undermines the 2006 referendum and the 2006 and 2007 statutory amendments. I note, however, that the Court's decision is wholly one of statutory interpretation, so that the General Assembly may again amend OCGA § 48-5-41(d)(2) to confirm, with clearer language, that it means what I think it already meansthat a purely public charity may use its buildings and up to 15 surrounding acres to produce income that is used entirely for the operation of the charity. For these reasons, I respectfully concur only in the judgment of the Court.