Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1947 )

. *
R-09
Honorable Jim D. Bowmer Opinion No. V-09
County Attorney
Bell County In Re: Exemption rrom taxa-
Belton, Texas tlon of certain
property owned by the
Episcopal Church at
Belton, Texas, used
as a dormitory ror
Episcopal girls at-
tending LYaryHardin
Baylor College.
Dear Sir:
You present for the opinion of this department
the question contained in your letter of December 20,19l+6,
which is copied below for a statement of the facts upon
which our opinion will be based. Your letter follows:
"The tax assessor-collector of this county
has asked me to obtain your opinion on the fol-
lowing tax problem which has arisen.
"The Episcopalian Church Diocese for Texas
owned and maintained a house In Belton, Texas,
from about 1929 to about 1940, as a dormitory
for Episcopalian girls attending Uary Hardin
Baylor College, a Baptist college. It is pre-
sumed they paid their room and board in the
same manner as if they had been residing at
the normal college-owned dormitory. The dorm-
itory itself was not an official part of the
school, The school itself, Its dormitories,
etc., are tax exempt. The Episoopalian Church
has not rendered this house for taxation, and
has recently sold it. The problem now arises
as to its exemption from taxes during the
years it was so used.
We would great.ly appreciate your opinion
as to the propriety of exempting this property
from State and County taxes when It was used
for the sbove purposes, both prior to and after
the 1931 amendments to Article 7150."
, ,
Honorable Jim D. Bowmer - page 2
.’ (1) It appears from the admitted facts that
the Episcopal Church, Diocese of Texas, armed and main-
tained a house in Belton, Texas, from 1929 to about
1940, as a dormitory for Episcopal girls attending Mary
Hardin Baylor College, a Baptist College;
(,.
(2) The girls paid room and board in the
same manner as if they had been residing at the.,dormi-
tories owned and maintained by the College;
(3) The dormitory was in no way an official
part of the College; and
(4) The Episcopal Church did not render this
dormitory for taxation during the time it was so owned
and maintained.
The question presented is the status of this
property for ad valorem taxes for the period of time it
was thus owned and maintained by the Episcopal Church;
that is, whether taxable or exempt.
Certain types of property are exempt from tax-
ation by the express terms of the Constitutions, - _ and this-
~.
the Legislature has no power to tax. Lower Colorado Rl-
ver Authority .v. Chemical Bank & Trust Co. (Supreme
Court) 190 S. W. (2d) 48. Other kinds of property, and
the property here in question is of that character, may
be exempt from taxation by the Legislature only by the
authority conferred upon it under the Constitution OS
this State. Thi’s power is derived from Section 2 of Ar-’
title VIII o$ the Constitution, which reads in part as
roll&y:. ‘7
R. . . the legislature may, by general
laws, exempt from taxation . . . all build-
ings used exclusively and owned by persons or
1assoclat ons 0
and the necessary furniture of all schools
and property used ,exclusively and reasonably
necessary in conducting any association en-
gaged in promoting the religious, education-
al and physical development of boys, girls,
young men or young women operating under a
State or National organization of like oharao-
ter;. . .”
Honorable Jim I?. Boumer, pn,;e :!
Pursuant to the authority thus conferred
upon the Legislature by Sec. 2 of Article VIII of
the Constltutlon OS quoted above, the Legislature
enprted Art. 71501 Rawle C. S., in language in part as
r0ii0ws:
“All public colleges, public academies,
and all endovmen: funds of lnst!tutions of
learning and religion not used with a vlev~
to profit, snd vhen the same are invested
In bonds or mortgages, and all such e---e bulld-
lngs used exclusively am%iii%-by p em
--- ons
or assyciatlons of persons for school pur-
poses ; .-
If the dormitory here in question is exempt
from ad valorem taxes, it must be by virtue of the
terms of Art. 7150 quoted above, The exemptlon from
taxation of.dornltcries ovned and maintained by the
College proper Is not questioned. But does the same
rule apply to the dormitory here In question ovned
by the Episcopal Church, a religious organization,
that has no official connection with the College? We
have no dlfficuity in classifying the Episcopal
Church as an “association of persons,“. but our dlf-
rimtg arises in determlnlng whether or not the
dormltory 1s used “ex’cluslvely for school purposes,”
and whether or not under the terms of Art. 7150,
such building nust be used and maintained by the
College as contra distlngulshed from ,owned and maln-
talned by a separate religious or6anlzatlon which
has no official connection with the College. A
careful search of the opinions of this department
and decisions of our appellate courts fail t,o reveal
that this identical question has been passed upon by
this departKent cr the courts of this State. We
think It may be correctly said that the young ladles
occupying this Episcopal Church dormitory constitute
as much a part of the student ~body of the College as
do the young ladies occupying the dormitories ovned
and maintained by the College. If one is used for
school purposes, we see no plausible reason why the
other might not likewise be so considered.
Honorable Jim D. Bowmer, page 4
Courts of other jurisdictions have had occa-
sion to consider what constitutes "school purposes"
under certain tax exemption statutes similar to the
one we have in Art. 7150, and we take occasion here
to note some of these decisions. In the case of In
Re: Syracuse.Universitg, 212 N. Y. S. 253, (Supreme
Court, Appellate Division, State of New York) the
Court made a comprehensive stateyent as to the mean-
ing of the term 'school purposes in the following
language:
"Dormitories, dining halls, hospitals,
training schools for nurses and stores for
supplies, and athletic fields used by the
students for athletic games and exercises,
and not as sources of institutional Income,
are essential parts of universities and
colleges: for education contemplates, not
only the mental and moral, but the physical
training and welfare, and the proper main-
tenance of those In attendance upon the
institution. People ex rel. Board of Trus-~
tees of Mt. Pleasant Academy v. Mez er et
al., 98 A.D. 237, go N.Y.S. 48 8 , af-
firmed 181 N.Y. 511, 73 N.E. 1130; State
v. Carleton College, 154 Mlnn. 280, 191
N.W; 400; People ex rel. Adelphl College
v. Wells et al., 97 Ap Div. 312, 8g
N.Y.S. 957, affirmed 1t;'0 N.Y. 534, 72 N.E.
1147. It does not appear that any profit
Is derived by the university from amounts
paid by students for residencas, food, or
hospital care.
"So, too, the university farm, used for
demonstration and instruction purposes, is
an appropriate part of the university equlp-
ment, and comes within the same general
category hereinbefore mentioned.
"The occupation by the chancellor of
the official residence furnished him by the
university is clearly an educational pur-‘
pose, and makes that property exempt from
taxation under the statute. In re Mary
Immaculate School of Eagle Park, 188 Ohio App.
Div. 5, 175 N.Y.S. 701, and cases cited."
Honorable Jim D. Bowmer, page 5
In the case of State v. Fisk University, 10
S.W. 284, (Supreme Court of Tennessee) the Court said:
“. To
. give
I.. the language. of the constitu-
’ tlon -tne strict_ . construction
-__ contended- for
_.
by tne complainants would lead to excluding
every portion of the property not actually
used in education. It would Include only
school buildings, desks, books, etc., Andy ‘.
would exclude ornamental promenade grounds,
play-grounds, and gymnasium buildings, and
infirmary or hospital buildings for the
pupils. The agreed case falls to show that
any of this property is used for profit, or
~for purposes not embraced within the duties
of the defendant, as an institution of
learning.
“There are many adjudged cases from
different states, and much in the textbooks,
which are not easily to be reconciled,grow-
lng out of exemptions somevhat similar to
those under consideration here. It Is not
our aim at this time to discuss these cases,
nor to define nor limit what uses may or
may not be within the exemptions referred
to. We only decide that the intention of
the legislature must govern in ascertaln-
in& the extent of such exemptions, and that
In arriving at such Intention the same
strictness of construction will not be in-
dulged where the exemption is to rellglous,
scientific, literary, and educational ln-
stitutlons that will be applied in con-
sidering exemptions to corporations created
and operating for private gain or profit....”
A more recent case by the Supreme Court of
Tennessee than the one first noted is the case of City
of Memphis v. Alpha Beta Welfare Association, 126 S.W.
(2d) 323, in which we find a statement of facts and a
pronouncement of the law which we deem-helpful in con-
sideration of the problem here considered, as follows:
“The Alpha Beta Chapter of the Phi Chi
Medical Fraternity in the Medical School of
the University of Tennessee, at Memphis, is
unincorporated. Its membership is made up
of the alumni of the Phi Chi Fraternity re-
Eonorable Jim D. Bowmer, page 6
siding in the City of Memphis, who are in
good standing, and the active members of
the chapter are the undergraduates of the
Medical School.
"The specific purpose of the Phi Chl
Medical Fraternity Is to promote the wel-
fare of medical students morally and sci-
entifically. For admission to the active
chapter, a student must be desirable from
a scholastic and moral standpoint. No one
% eligible for membership In the active
chapter except matrlculants in the Unlver-
slty of Tennessee Medical Department.
"Prior to the organization of the As-,
soclatlon, in 1950, the student members of
the Alpha Beta Chapter of the Phi Chi Fra-
ternity were living in boarding houses,
scattered around over the city, the Univer-
sity being without dormitories. As the re-'
sult of the appeal of the then undergradu-
ate members of the Fraternity, a number of
the leading doctors of Memphis interested
themselves In organizing the Welfare Asso-
clationln order that sui'table property
might .be acquired and the student members
of the Fraternity housed under one roof.
This was considered very essential to the
welfare of these members and to the success-
ful carrying out of the purposes of the
Fraternity.
"It appears that'about fifty students
live In the house In question and each one
pays $57.50~ per month, which covers board,
lodging, and Fraternity dues. They main-
tain a mess, with which the Association
has nothing to do. Supervision Is exer-
cised by the Assoclaticn over the physical
condition of the premise's and over the con-
duct of the student residents. A high
standard of moral and ethical conduct is
demanded.
"It is shown that the alumni of the
Phi Chi Chapter have furnished the students
with a considerable number or‘books, the
majority of which are mcdLca1 Ln their
Honorable Jim D. Bower, page 7
scope; but others are upon subjects of
general information and interest. Addl-
tlonal books are being added to this ll-
brary from time to time.
“No teaching staff is maintained by
the Association or by the Fraternity. No
classes of any kind are conducted on the
premises. However, other things of a
cultural and educational nature are relied
on as entitllng~the Association to tax
exemption. . . .n
“In the instant case, both the trial
judge and the Court of Appeals have de-
termined that the property in question is
used exclusively for educational purposes
bnd tiith this finding we feel constrained
to concur.. .I’
In the case of Ward Seminary for .Young Ladies.
v. Mayor, et al., of Nashville, 167 S.W. 113, (Supreme
Court of Tennessee) the following general statement vas
made as to what constitutes “school purposes”:
“The result of the whole case Is that
ve hold the property of the complainant
which is in reality used in educational
irork, such as the school buildings, dormi-
tories, exercise grounds and the usumd
appropriate equipment of this character of
institution, to be exempt from taxation.. .‘I
In’tbe recent case of Harris v. City of Fort
Worth; 180 S.W. (2d) 131,.Justlce Sharp of the Supreme
Cdurt, in approving what Mr. Justice Robertson said in
the early case of Cassiano v. Ursullne Academy, 64 Tex.
673, said:
“It has been the policy of the state
since 1849 to encourage educational egter-
prises by exempting them from any share of
the burdens of overnvent. Pasch. Dig.,
arts. 5147, 514 8 , 7485, 7688. ., . .
“The education of the masses is now
recognized as a function of state govern-
ment. Those who, from charitable considera-
tions, to forward sectarian views, or for
prtvate profit, have organized or conducted
.a
Honorable Jim D. Bowtnsr, page 8
schools, have aszinked t'na ntek il? the
performance of a duty it owes to its
citizens which cannot be too thoroughly
performed, and vhich the state has never .
assumed that it had either the means or
the machinery of doing sufficiently well
wlthout private assistance. The Ursuline
Academy is performing its part in this
branch of the public service, and it
should rather be encouraged by aids, than'
impaired In Its usefulness by a tax upon
Its pitiful revenues."
We do not. think that Justice Sharp meant to
abrogate the rule of stric,t construction against tax
exemptions which has always prevailed In this State,
but merely intended the above statement to evidence
the liberality of the Legislature In extending the
exemptions authorized in Art. 7150.
We think Texas will ccmpare favorably with
any state in the Union in the number, efficiency, and
value of educational institutions owned and malntalned'~
by religious organizations. Such schools and colleges
have been fostered and built up, and it has been the
policy of our State to encourage them. It is a matter
of common kn.owledge that there has been established and
maintained for the laudable purpose of better protect-
ing and conserving the religious, moral, and physical
well being of young men and young women attending varl-
ous educational Institutions In this State, dormitories,
which have always been considered exempt from taxation.
The Catholic Church owns and maintains at the University
of Texas NewmanHall, a Catholic dormitory for girls of
that faith attending the University of Texas; the Scot-
tish Rite, a Masonlc organization, owns and maintains
at the University of Texas a dormitory for girls, al-
though not exclusively for girls of Masonic family af-
filiation, but primarily for that purpose; and the
Methodist Church ovns and maintains Carothers Dormitory
at the University of Texas and at the Texas College for
Women at Denton, Texas, a dormitory fcr young ladies of
the Methodist Church, and as far as we know there has
not been any attempt by the taxing aufhoritles to la- .
pose ad valorem taxes upon these various dormitories,
although they have no official connection with the re-
spective university or college. These dormitories have
been thus owned and maintained for many years, and we
must assume at all times with the knowledge and approval
. I. ,
Honorable Jim D. Bowmer, $age 9
of the Legislature a.s to their tax exempt status.
To now hold such dormitories subject to ad valorem
taxes would in our view depart from what we believe
to be the well established and saluta?y policy of
this State. We, tF.erefore, put aside e.s lmmaterlal
the fact that this dormitory is owned by the Epls-
copal Church, which has no official connection with
Nary Hardln Baylor College.
It vi11 be observed that~ the language of
Art. 71!iO; R. C. S., uses only the term “buildings”
as comprehended within the exemption, but this need
not give us concern because the courts have settled
this question in the early case of Cassiano v. Ur-
sullne Academy,.supra, from which ws qrote as fol-
lovs :
“The word bulldin is a term as
broad as the wor7nK&. House hRs been
construed to mean both the structure and
the land on vhlch it stands. Gerke v.
Purcell, 25 Ohio St., 227; Mullen v..
Commlrs.t 85 Pa.St., 288; Trln;ty Church
v. Boston, 118 Mass,, 164, and cases
cited in it.”
Therefore, the ground upon which the build-
ing is located and the building are both exempt under
the Constitution and s’tatutes of this State, but only
so much grotid as is necessary for the intended and
reasonable use of the building may be exempt.
In determining whether or not this dorml-
tory, ovned, maintained R.nd operated by the Episcopal
Church, Is used exclusively for school ]:urposes wlth-
in the limits of the Constitution and ststutes of
this State, we are constrained to follow what we con-
ceive to be the most modern and reasonable construc-
tion placed upon the term “school purposas” by our
courts, and prefer the construction that whatever
fosters the moral, splrltual, and physical well being
of the students is as much a “school purpose” as the
actual academic instruction vhlch the students re-
celve. We assume, as we think your opln:on request
does, that this dormltciry is not owned, onerated and
maintained by the Episcopal Church for profit, but
exclusively for school p-drposes consistent vith the
aim? we h?,ve expressed above as to what constitutes
such a purpose. We therefore hold that this dorml-
. ,
Honorable Jim D. Bowmer,, page10
tory Is exempt from ad valorem taxes during the time It
was owned, maintained and operated by the Episcopal
Church.
A dormitory owned, maintained and operated
'by the Episcopal Church, for use by the.~glrls of
Episcopal families attending Mary Hardin Baylor
College at Belton, Texas, is exempt from ad
valorem taxes, and'thls notwithstanding it has
no other ofzicial connection with the College,
and comes vithin the purvjev of the ConstitutJon,
Section 2 af Article VIII, and the statutes,
Article 7150, R. C. S., of this State as a bulld-
ing used exclusively for school purposes.
Very truly yours
ATTORNEYGENERALOF TEXAS
BY
LPL:AMM
APPROVEDJANUARY27. 1947
ATTORNEYGENERAL
APPROVED
OPINION
COMMITTEE
By O.~S.
Chairman