Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1951 )

PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGENERAL
February 26, 1951
Hon. Henry Wade Opinion No. V-1153.
Distr,ict Attorney
Dallas County Re: Tax exemption of property -.
Dallas, Texas owned by morticians’ schools.‘;.
Dear Sir:
You have’requested the opinion of this office on the
above captioned matter and have supplied us with a copy of an
opinion rendered by you on the same subject. The only facts stated
in the opinion are that a Mr. Fredericks and his associates have
petitioned the Tax Assessor-Collector of Dallas County for tax
exemption on a morticians’ school operating e;ntirely for gain.
Section 2, Article VIII, of the Constitution of the State
of Texas authorizes the Legislature to “exempt from taxation D . D
all buildings used exclusively and owned by persons or associa-
tions of persons for school purposes. D a 0w Article 7150, V.C.S.,
grants the exemption in$he exact words of the Constitution except
for the insertion of the word ““such” before ‘“buildings.”
In Smith v. Feather, 234 S.W.Zd 418 (Tex, Sup. 1950),
the Court held that a building used exclusively for operating a pri-
vate school offering courses in Interior Architecture and Decora-
tion, Commercial Art> Costume Design, and Display and Merchan-
dising was exempt from taxation during the years that the owners
so operated the building, but was not exempt for those years in
which one of the partners owned no interest in the building, The
Court stated that buildings used exclusively for private schools,
even though operated for profit, are exempt from taxation. At page
420 of the opinion, the Court said:
“The language of the exemption is hardly sus-
ceptible of any other construction. It is applicable to
buildings privately owned, and the only requisite which
must be met in order for a building to fall within the
exemption is that it be used exclusively by its owner
for school purposes.” (Emphasis ours.)
Under the holding of the Feather case, the owners of
the building must be the.exclusive operators of the school. The
r case also summarizes the cases which have dealt with
factual requisites for exemption and which hold that if any
Hon. Henry W&e, Page 2 f V+ll53)
part of the build%g, is use&by one not the owner or is used by the
owner as a reside&e or in any way which is inconsistent with the
school’s purpose& the exemptioa is lost.
If the factual requidtc* for exemption are met in the
instant case, the buildings of the mOatician$’ school are exempt
from taxation. Finally, we call year attention to the fact that the
exempt@ is limited to the school buikdlngs and the land upon which
they stand and such ground ad la ucled in the actual operation of the
school. St. Edwards College_v, Morris, 82 Tex. 1, 17 S.W. 512 (1891).
Personaf property belanging to the rdhool is not exempt from taxa-
tion,
.
The buildings of a matticiam school atid the
land on which they stand are exempt from taxation if
the owners are the exclusive operators of the school
and if the buildings are used exclusively for school
,purposes. St, Edwards College v. Morris, 82 Tex. 1,
17 S.W. 5127TaYl] ; s m ith v. Feather, 234 S,W.Zd 418
(Tex. Sup, 1950).
Yours very truly,
PRICE DANIEL
Attorney General
APPROVED:
Mrs. MariettaMcGregor
W. V. Geppert Assistant
Tdxation Division
Jesse P. Luton, Jr.
Reviawiag Assistant
Price Daniel
Attorney Genelgil