Court Opinion

ID: 9659625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:51:05.975068+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:10.103843
License: Public Domain

Knutson, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the conclusion reached by the dissent of Mr. Justice Murphy. I have no difficulty in concluding that this institute is not a purely public charity. I find more difficulty in holding that the. institute does not come within the provisions of Minn. St. 273.19, subd. 1, but I am persuaded that the dissent is correct on this issue also. Obviously, the statute was intended to permit short-term leases of public property to avoid payment of taxes. But when the lease is made, as was done here, for 2 years 11 months, with subsequent leases being made of similar duration, it seems to- me that the purpose of the statute has been completely ignored. I think that when a lease of this kind is followed by subsequent leases extending in the aggregate beyond the statutory period, the property should become taxable, if not ab initio, at least from, the time of the subsequent lease periods. Otherwise, *105the statute is used as a device for evading the payment of taxes when every intention was to lease the property for more than 3 years. I cannot believe that the legislature intended that property could go tax-free simply by drafting a lease for slightly less than 3 years and then continually making subsequent leases for similar periods. If the statute can be so construed, I think it should be amended by the legislature so that when a lease for less than 3 years is followed by subsequent leases whereby the property is held for more than 3 years, it should become taxable at some point in time. I therefore agree with the dissent that in this case the statute was not used as contemplated by the legislature.
This case has been a troublesome one from the beginning. We have heal'd oral arguments on it twice and have had many conferences among members of the court. I am convinced that careful consideration has been given to the case by all of us even though we are not in agreement.
Mr. Justice Todd and Mr. Justice MacLaughlin, not having been members of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.