Court Opinion

ID: 9544115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:52:07.452723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:01.843615
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE PRINGLE
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
I do not think the statute in question is facially unconstitutional, but I do believe that it was unconstitutionally applied with respect to the parties involved in the lawsuit before us.
The Grand Lodge I.O.O.F. of Colorado was the lessee of the real property involved here in a ninety-nine year lease which had all the incidents of ownership, including the obligation to pay all the taxes assessed against the property. I cannot see how it serves a legitimate state purpose to exempt from taxation a charity because it holds title to property which would otherwise be subject to taxation and yet not to exempt a charity because it does not hold title, yet does have the obligation to pay the taxes incident to the holding of title.
In the first case, the charity can devote to its charitable activities the funds which it would otherwise have to give to the state in taxation. In the other case, the charity cannot devote such funds to its charitable activities but must pay the state of Colorado. To me this is a denial of equal protection.
*133I understand the majority opinion when it points out that the statute was meant to correct abuses which benefitted non-charitable owners who had leased property to charity. I cannot understand its application in this case where the non-charitable owner would get no benefit from the exemption since the charity is required by the lease to pay the taxes.