Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1940 )

._
481
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
Elonorablr 0. &rtt Potter
County Attorney
San Patrloio 0ou.W
Slntoa, Taxer
Doer Slrl
Wo aro in room
1940, in rhloh thlr depsrtnwiai
to whOth6r or a1tr of corpus Chrlrfl
rbrrrrolr ~urposrr ir
8hall ba aqua1 an6
Oi 8ubjOOt8 rlthla
tho
7l4 the tar but the
law, rr4mp t from
J we4 Sor pub110 put-
Of ktiOl0 11 Of tb ~OlWtitUt;Oll Oi FOX88
robarty of OOUnti@I, aitiO8 an6 tomu,
14 oall for
pub114 purpose8, ruoh a8
$hO bUi:diIwr rod the 8it.8 tber*tC'S~ sir0 @D&38
an4 th8 furnihrb theraoi, an6 all gropr?t7 uad, or
1 nta ntWlio r l%tln&al8hinu firrr, $ublio grounU8 and
all othr property d8tOtd 8xo1urirr1~ to the 010
and bmrilt Of 8hr FUbliO rhall b@ lxampt *Or fOrO4d
rrlr and froa fixation, proridrd, nothln hsrbla ohs11
protent ah8 enforo4!BWlt of tbr v4ndOr8 1 P. 8n, th0
uoh8niO8 Or bullb4t8 lien, Or other 110138DOW
lJl8Slllg.~
!
I
!.
Honorable 0. Burtt itttar, k--g4 &
Artlola 7180 of the R4rls4Q v
“1 vi1 $tatut44 of Texer,
rradr in part a8 fO11OW8l
*The followln~ property rhsll bo exempt
rr0m tax4tlon, to-rltr
a440
'4. Pub110 property - rll property, whether
real or ?erron41, belon(rln(( lxolurir41~ to thi8 State,
or my po+l$tfiel rubdltirlon thereof, or the United
Stat48,
Court Of Civil Appal8 1n the 0~4
Th4 Esrtlend or
City of ~4bllenr vs. State
113 5. ii. (ti) 631, nit OS error
di8Pi844d by th0 3Upr4ZI4 Court, Oonatruad t& above quoted
portion8 0r the Oonrt1tutlon of feras and krtlcle 7160 ln oon-
motion r1th tbe exsfiptlon oi Property purohassd by tho City
oi Abllenr far the puipoaar of-a keaerrolr, whloh i)urpos4 ii
ldantfoal with the on4 for sbiob tb8 property la belw used
by tho City OS bOT&Ml8 S3riatl in yollr naae. The oourt rtstod
(I8 rOiiWd8 I
w+ ” l There oonsldsratlonr le?d.ys to _
.
the oonolu8lon that 88 to tn4 poa~3r Or ta4 Iagls-
laturo, to lxeapt pub110 property from tsxatlon,
all ruoh property rhould be regarded a8 ‘used Sor
pub110 mOS48' n&n it 18 Owned azid held for
publis purp0S4S, but not ownad or held orolualr4l~
ror 8uoh purp0serl 4nd fhgr$ haS keen a0 obsndon-
nent of ruoh &mfOO8Wv
“* l l It 18, tbrrorore, our view tbct
when thr SeObB of l @ire13 0460 rstebllrh the
onrrerShlp cl property by 4 munlolpal corporation,
rhloh ha8 t44B ropu1r.d for l0 ruthorlzed pub110
purpose, and tkb purpose ior wh1oh it 18 wened
-“end held ha8 not b44n rber,doneb, ruch property
18 to b4 rrgardrd 48 us4d for pub110 purposoa,
and the Ia.gl~n)aturo hSr the pO%er to proridr tp, 4"
wnerrl law for It8 sxemptlon from t6xhtlon.
The pro;osltion that beforr pro;ertr 1r tax 0X42&t
it ha8 to be botb osmd and held for pub114 p~cpoeer wa8 an-
nounoad by t%! tiupreme Court of Tessa in Sn oplnlon w'rlttrn
by Justlor Gainer in the oaie Or Morris t8. tin4 Star Chaptor
No. 31x, s 3. w. s19. The Court rtatrd a8 fQllOw8l
Honorable C. Furtt rotter, pare 3
.Thle poaltion ia also luatelned by the
lnslo(ly of thr aeotlon, whloh oxeagta the pro;rrty
or aountlr~, oitlsr, 8nd town,. Tbr exeaptlon lr
llmitod to thrir property owned an6 told only for
pub1 lo purpooar , euoh ee pub110 bulldlncr a ndllter
thereicr.’
The aam proporitlon or law wa8 announoed by the
Ecau..nt Court or Clrll ~ppeala in the oaae or ;an Antonio In-
d4pender.t 5oho01 Xstrict va. :;rter k’crke Eoerd of Trustee@,
120 2. ‘i;, (cd) 681. The Court etated a8 follows:
a * l * The deoislon of thla oaoe turne
upon t>e a018 ;uastlon of whether or not the Xater
Xorks Lyzten, w!?loh supplier the L‘ltyor z:anaa-
tonio lr ‘0%ned and held’ by tha Zlty of San antonlo
80 88 to oom vilthln the protlslons 0r the -tste
Constitution mhioh exaapts ruoh property from
tsxct~on. * + +*
In th1.a otisa we have both ths o\imr of the property,
e private indlvl~iusl, sn;l a lessee, n-k1oh 1s t>e City of Corpus
Chrlsti. Thererore we 0311 your ettectloa to Artlole 7171 0r
the Revlaad Xrll jtstuter oi Tcr~s, RhlOh reudr as iollOzce:
“All real property subject to taxation
rhell be aaaeased to the omera thereof In the
mmer herein provided but no assesment of real
property ahall be oom i awed Illegal by realon
or the an.1 aot being llatod or lrse88ed la the
neze of the owner or owrrme thereor.”
The ap llcable ru?a of lar we8 laid dam by the
3qre.m Zourt 0r Tares in an opinion n’rittaa by Chief JI;:tlce
tayt:n iti the o~.se of 1)EuFherty vs. ?hcmFscn, 71 Ter. l9fi,
zhs Ccjurt st-.tsa at3 r0ii04~
“The ue:-ersl rule la thtt ttmanar of ma1
lat.tte leesed is trx*blr upon t&a ectlre valur Or
the property a::2 ttir aetlstle4 the oon~tit*~tlcnal
reguirr;ent that ‘611 property in this atate, whe-
thtr orntd by n?ltursl fsrrone or cor~or%tloaS, otb.ar
than munlolpal, ahsll be taxed in proportion to lta
vtlue*”
- 484
Honorable 0. Burta Potter, pegr 4
3~ answering year qwstlon la this OOS*, m aurt
sonsldor the tax as belag asseresd against ths omar and as
bslng a llablllty oa~hls part daspltr the Saot that _ ._.
uodor the
leans oontraot ths City of Qorpos Ohrletl has oontraotea m
ay all taxes that mar baoonw due. V!o 60 not belier. then
1 8 any quastloa but that if thls gropart~ was owned by ths
Oltf oi Corpus Ohrlsti the saaa woul6 met the ssnstltutional.
nqulremsats of property being onaed and bald only ior publie
ggg-,‘Y,t*‘p’gP;’ achy& ,“,:; “,$-g~~~,““,~,o,,’
suprai and San &toalo*I.*S. llatar Korks Board oi Trusties,
D. ~8~
However, under the you lub mlt
iaots the propertyb not
%%*br the Oitr of Corpus ChrIsti but 1s owaed by an lndlrldual
who has privately leased ths saras to suoh oity. Xe do not
ballerr that the oonetltutIonal and stetutor~ exemption as quoted
above and as interpreted by ths oases above olted would apply
in your oaaea To thIn.k ths dlsoneaion la the oass of Cltr of
Dallas tar Ooohraa, 166 3. ‘U. 32, IS lpplloablo In this sase.
In that oaso a private lndltldual had laaaed property to a
ohuroh and he tbarsfora ooatendad that ths property was tax exempt
under the authority o? Seotloa t of ATtlols 8 of the Oonstltutlon
or Texas. The Court atatad as follows1
Vha Saot thet tha le8aee used tbr pramlees
under a rantal oontraot for ohuroh purpoeos would
be opposed by the faot wet tte owner, 01aImIng the
exe=ptlon, was hkueali putting his property to ths
UIS 0r private galxba
A llka sltuetlon was dlsoussed by ths Supreme Court
or Texas In the oase 31 Rsd vs. MOrrlS, 10 3. 1. 881, by Juetloe
Cainas. In dlaouasine the proposltloa that the propertywould
hare to be owned by the sob001 in order to bs tax lxampt the
Court stated as followsr
“iie think, that pursuant to the same policy,
tba Laglslature, meant, by tha lmployzaant of tha term
of tha OonetltutIoa, to prerrnt the owners of proport
iron taklag adrantaga oi the lxemptloa, when thry
leased the proparty1, others tar profit, to ba used
by the latter ror the maIateaanoe 0r eohools.W
The Attorney Ganeralta Departnsnt In an opinion
written by Assistant Attornay Oaneral Joa f. Alsup, to Bonoreble
Oherlas 2. Raagan, Dletrlot Attornsy, ?a118 County dated
Tebruery 1, 1935, held that a bullding that was prI tataly
.
.
. *
Bonombls C. Burtt Potter, page 8
owned but used for oharltabls purposes was not exempt from
taxation. The Attorney Oaneral~s Departaant in aa oplaloa
wrlttaa by Anthony Msnlaouloo, to Charles Br Thompson, “Xla-
burg, Texas, dated yabrusry Zl, 1936, held that e bulidla~
that was privately owned but the ufe was donated to th
Federal Emargenay Relief MmInlstratlon was not exempt from
taurtloa. Thls Deportmnt In Opinion 0-1bU held that where
a lot and bulldlng which was privately owned was leasod to
the TiorksProgress Adxln:etration the rams was not exempt
from taxatloa. This Departmnt also ruled in Opinion lo.
O-93b that bulldings leased by the Austin 3ohool of Buslaess
and IUIron-Clay Cormarolel Oollege were not uenipt from taxa-
tion beoause the same wers not owned by said sohools but
ware leased by then from grlrate ladlvlauals.
Zt Is the opinion of this dopmtzant that under
the re0t8 sub?iItted, the property laasad by the City 0r Corpus
Christ1 ror reservoir pur>osea la not caxonpt iron ad valoran
taxes.
Yor;re very truly