Court Opinion

ID: 9633948
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:08:34.457332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:07.393384
License: Public Domain

DOOLIN, Justice,
dissenting:
I dissent.
This court’s opinion enunciates a principle that if a low income person helps himself in any small manner, assistance given to him is not for a charitable purpose. Because a portion of a person’s income is paid as rent does not mean he is not in need of or may not be a recipient of “charity.” As for example various church or lodge sponsored organizations and hospitals receive non-taxable charitable status even though many of the persons served in such institutions are full or part paying patients or guests.
National Society of the Volunteers of America is a charitable and religious organization similar to such organizations as the Salvation Army. Under its constitution, non-profit corporations throughout the country have been formed “to aid and assist the society in carrying on its religious, benevolent and philanthropic work.” London Square Village is one of these corporations. See purpose clause of Articles of Incorporation cited in majority opinion.
Anyone may live in the Village. However only those with an annual income below an established maximum are eligible to receive rent supplements from HUD. Preference is given to applicants with the lowest practicable income limits.
There is no doubt the Oklahoma Constitu-; tion mandates an exemption from taxes for all property used exclusively for charitable purposes. Admittedly all non-profit corporations cannot claim exemption, but if it can be shown the use of the property is for charitable purposes then the exemption should be allowed.
“Charity” and in consequence “a use for charitable purposes” contemplates a wide spectrum of activities. Tax exemption statutes must be strictly construed, but the policy of this state has been liberal in exempting property of charitable organizations from taxation. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Sisters of Sorrowful Mother, 186 Okl. 339, 97 P.2d 888 (1940).
“Charitable,” defined in its broader sense by this court, comprehends all kindly inclinations which men ought to bear toward one another. In re Farmers’ Union Hospital Association of Elk City, 190 Okl. 661, 126 P.2d 244 (1942). Charitable purposes means those purposes which benefit an indefinite number of persons either by influence or by relieving their bodies from suffering and constraint. It may, also, mean erecting or maintaining buildings or any other method of lessening the burden on the state to care for and advance the interests of its citizens. Source of the funds for operation is not the sole factor. American College of Surgeons v. Korzen, 36 Ill.2d 340, 224 N.E.2d 7 (1967).
The majority is carefully silent as to jurisdictions holding that housing projects do have a charitable purpose, and that it is immaterial that tenants might pay some fractional portion of the rent. City of Harrisburg v. Presbyterian Apartments, 18 Pa. Cmwlth. 428, 337 A.2d 297 (1975); Delmo Housing Corporation v. Finnegan, 85 F.Supp. 220 (E.D.Mo.1949). Providing low cost housing for people with limited incomes may constitute a public charity even though rent is charged, if the rents charged are less than rents charged by commercial apartments and if the organization has never taken a profit for private purposes. Four Freedoms House of Philadelphia, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 443 Pa. 215, 279 A.2d 155 (Penn.1971). There the court recognized the possibility, as could be present in Village’s case, that if a charitable tax exemption is not allowed, the owner organization may have to either close its doors or increase the rent. Either alternative would frustrate the charitable intention of the organization.
There can be no fixed rule to determine if an organization or its purpose is charitable. But it is academic that charity is not confined to almsgiving or relief of poverty and distress but has a broader signification, embracing the improvement and happiness of man. “A charitable use, where neither law *1228nor public policy forbids, may be applied to almost anything that tends to promote the well-doing and well-being of social man.” Krause v. Peoria Housing Authority, 370 Ill. 356, 19 N.E.2d 193 (1939); Bader Realty & Investment Co. v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 358 Mo. 747, 217 S.W.2d 489 (1949). I am persuaded by the reasoning of these courts even though here we do not deal with ownership by a housing authority. Although in those cases as well as here, only families of low income may receive direct benefit from the housing project, all persons in the community benefit indirectly. Charity of this type tends to be of a most practical character. The above cited jurisdictions hold property held by a housing authority used to provide low rent accommodations is used exclusively for charitable purposes notwithstanding that some rent is charged. Also see Williamson v. Housing Authority of Augusta, 186 Ga. 673, 199 S.E. 43 (1938).
Methodist River Oaks Apartments, Inc. v. City of Waco, 409 S.W.2d 485 (Tex.Civ.App. 1966) cited by the majority as holding a housing project not to be charitable is readily distinguishable from the present case. There the court held corporation formed by Negro Methodist Church to provide accommodations for families from displaced urban renewal areas was not a “purely public charity” because the rents paid by the tenants were not lower than equivalent housing, thus taking no burden from the state.
This is not the case here. The organization was created to implement the charitable purposes of the federal act. It does not charge the tenants for the services it performs in assisting them in obtaining this type housing. What tenants pay is demonstrably and substantially lower than fair market rental value because of the supplements received and anticipated. As yet there has been no operating profit shown and if one should exist in the future it would not be retained by Village.
The purpose of the rent supplement program is to aid qualified persons in obtaining housing while enabling plaintiff to meet its necessary expenses. The rent received is used solely for the benefits of the residents of the Village. Citizens of Oklahoma are the beneficiaries of the project and the use and benefit of the property is limited to “within this State.” The fact the direct result of an occasional possible surplus could be more funds for other involved states does not destroy the benefit citizens of Oklahoma receive from such practice in the form of low cost housing. Further, if in the future a profit is realized from the property or use of property becomes non-charitable, tax exempt status will be promptly removed. See 18 O.S.1975 Supp. § 864.
I believe London Square Village, operated by a charitable organization and for the charitable purpose of aiding citizens of Oklahoma by providing low cost housing, meets the constitutional and statutory guidelines for ad valorem tax exemption and I would reverse the district court.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice WILLIAMS and Justice BARNES join in this dissent.