Court Opinion

ID: 4145268
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-18 03:54:48.395529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:52.253788
License: Public Domain

GERAW,.C. MANN'.               ,AUSTXNSI. -cl
                           .            .,

   Honorable~Ti 'M./Trimble<.
   First Assistant State Superintendent
   Austin, Texab
                                       .
   Dear Sir:                       O&non    No..C+43
                                        Whether property :of Sarah
                                        B. Mi,lroyHospital is exempt
                                         from taxation.
              receipt'.ofyour ietter'.ofJuly .18, 199’. &wherein you
   We.are'-.in,
   request sour'opin$on'as$o:whether the Sarah ~B.Niiroy.Hospital.
   is hxempti 'from thepayment of texes to.the Brenham&dependent
   Sdhool D.i&.l?ict'npon its properties; YUnder.the.facts.which you
   submi,tto.usj:'theSarah D. PiilroyHospital .Is:a'Texas~.cor*poration
   with capit&.~stock having a'p!ar.value' a'nd'.~rganize,d.f?.r'
                                                             private
    p*of$&.       ’   .,

    Art&le Fi,Section 2 of the ,StateConstitution provides'&&   "the
    Legislature~may by.general laws exempt from taxation..........
    institutions'-of'urely public charity; and all laws exempting
    property from taxation other than the above mentioned shall be
    null :and.void.".

    Section 7 of Article 7150, Revised Civil Statutes,.was enacted
    in pursuance~to the above constitutional provision, and the first
    sentence-thereof reads as .follows:
              "Public charities. All buildings belonging to institutions
              of purely public charity, together with:the,:l,ands!belonging
              to and occupied by such institutions not leased or otherwise
              used with a view to profit, unless such rents and-profits and
              all moneys and credits are appropriated by such institutions
              solely to sustain such institutions and for the benefit of
              the sick and disabled members and their familiesand the..:'
              burial of the same, or for th.emaintenance of persons when
              unable to provide for themselves, whether such persons are
              members of such institutions or not....."
    The fact that the institution in question does some charitable
    work is not sufficient to bring it within the exemption. Our
    courts have held that the work *purely" as used in Article 6,
    Section 2, of the Constitution, is intended to modify the word
    "charity" and not the word "public"~. Therefore, for an institu-
Hon. T. M. Trimble, Page 2    o-u.43

tion to be one of "purely public charity," it must be:~oneyhose   T
property is used wholly and exclusively for charitableplrposes.
B.P.O.E. Lodge No. 151 vs. City of Houston, 44 S.W. (2d) 488;
City of Houston vs. Scottish Rite Benevolent Association, 230
S.d. 978. As stated in Santa Rosa Infirmary vs. City of San
Antonio, 259 S.b+i.
                  926, by the Commission of Appeals, Section 2
of Article 8 of the Constituion expresslymakes null and void
all exemptions attempted thereunder by the Legislature unless
authorized by the constitutional provision ,itself..:It.is not.
made mandatory that the Legislature shall extend the exemption
but the constitutional provision is only an authorization to do
so. As shown in the aoove quotation, the statute does not attempt
to extend the exemption to buildings and land belonging to an
institution where ~.thesame is used with a view to profit. This
precludes fromthe exemption the property of a corporation where
distributable earnings in the shape of dividends upon the,stock
of the corporation are to accr.ue. See Santa Rosa ,I.nf.irmaryvs.
City of San Antonio,:supra. Exemptions from taxation are uot
favored and.in order for a.perso.n'toreceive,'theoenefit.sof
such exemption~the burden,is upon him.to show that~his.property
clearly cometswith,inthe same. B;:.Pi 'O?'E.Lodge ,No..l51 vs.
City ofHouston, supra.;.Santa Rosa Infirmary vs. City of San
Antonio; 'supra. Under the facts submitted to us, the property
of the Sarah B. Milroy Hospital is not exempt from the payment of
the school taxes.
                                       Yo&   ye+y truly
                                  ATTORNEY GENBRAL OF-TEXAS

                                  BY
                                             GlennR. Lewis
                                             Assistant
GRL:N
APPROVEU &JL:31,~1939;
   W..F.MOORE‘
FIRST ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL-