Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1944 )

. -
OFRCE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS i .
AUSTIN
GROVER SELLERS
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
iiouorablaEomsr D. Eck
County Auditor
Fayette County
LaGrange, Texas
Daar Sir:
ion of this depa
paragraph of th
tax sxesptad?
irad through voluntary
bers of the parish and
le to the property is
olic Archbishop of San htonio,
Robert E. Lucy, D. D., in whcse
property is held.
1 is used for the following,purposes,
viz: parish meetings, meetings of catholic so-
citiss, &tsrnity Guild, Catholic Action, Catho-
lic organizations,Catholic Union of Texas, re-
ligious instructions to children, socials; plays
and O~CXI or twice yearly picnic dinners and dances
am held.
"Ro rent or contributionsare paia by the
various organizationsusing the hall, however
-: . .
:,
. 42
Honorable Homer D. Eck - page 2
when picnic dinners and dances are given admission
fess are charged. Money collsctsd from ths adziS-
Sian fSSS of the later is used for the benefit of
the church and chari$abla purposes."
Article 8, Section 2, of the Constitution of TaxaS
Provides that "the Legislaturemay, by snsral laws, axampt
from taxation . . . . actual places or 7 of) religious worship,
slao any property owned by a church or by a strictly religious
society for tha axclusi~a use as a dwelling place for ths minis-
tsry.,ofsuch church or religious sociaty, and which yields no
rarsnua whatever to such church or religious socisty; .
and property used exclusivelyand reasonably nacassary'i: ion-
ducting any sSSOCistiOn Sngagsd in pronoting ths religious,
educational and physical development of boys, girls young
men or young woman operating under a state or national orga-
nization
. of like character. . . .e
. -.
-. Section 1 of Articia 7150, Vernon's Annotated civil
Statutes, provides:
"The folio-;Jing
property shall be sxsapt frown
taxation, to-wit:
"1. Schools and churches --Public school houses
and actual places of religious worship, also any pro-
party owned by a church or by a strictly religious
society, for the axclusivs usa 3s a dwelling place
for the ministers of such church or religious so-
ciety, the books and furniture therein and the
grounds attached to such buildings necessary for
the proper occupancy, use and enjoyment of the
,sa"a,and which yields no revenue whatever to such
church or religious SOCisty . . . .*
Section 2a of said Article 7150 provides:
"28. Religious, educational and physical dsvslop-
mant associations --That all property owned or used ax-
cluSivaly and reasonablynscsssary, in conducting any
association engaged in the joint and three-fold rSli-
gious, educational and physical development of boys
ana girls, young man and young women, operating under
s stats or national organization of like character,
and not leased or othsrviss used with a view to Profit
other than for the purpose of =13intaininqthe build-
ings and assgciation,, , .. . shall be sxaapt fro:z
taxation . . . .I'
‘
-.
43
Honorable Homer D. Eck - page 3
As ststad by Justice Sharp of the Texas Supreme
Court, “The Constitution and the Statutes of this State
evince a liberality in the exemption from taxation of pro-
party for educstional or rsligious purp0saa.a I&rris v.
City of Fort Worth, 180 S. W. (26) 131.
We think the property in question is an “actual
place of religious worship* within the meaning of the Conati-
tution end the statute above referred to. Although ~!a find
no Texas decisions passing upon the question you present, wa
baliavs that the weight of authority in this country supports
our 0Pinion.
In People v. Faitnsr, 61 N. E. 762 (N. Y.), the Statute
exempted property used ‘laxclusivelyfor the moral or mental
improvamant of men or woman, or for religious, Bible, tract,
charitable, benevolent, missionary . . . . or for two or more
such purposes . . . .I1 A “clergy house” located on the corner
,~_.
of the -,church
building was held to be sxsmpt undar this Sta-
tute. This “clergy house” included a large room known 3s “St.
Joseph’s Hall”, used for Sunday School and other religious
sarvicss. Other uses included a dressing room for choir boys,
and the “man’s guild”, consisting of a reading room, club room,
billiard room and library. The court added that the fact that
sleeping roons of the curates and of the building engineer
vsrs located hers, baing merely incidental, did not destroy
the exemption.
Perhaps the leading case on the subject is St. Paul's
Church v. COncord, 75 Atl. 531 (N. X. ), 27 L. R. A. N. S. 910,
Ann. Cas. 1912.4,page 350. The Statute exsaptad “houses of
public worship.I1 The building in question was located in the
rear of the lot on which the church stood. The bassmnt in-
cluded dining room, kitchen and serving room. The first floor’ I
was an auditorium with a stage. Ths second story had rooms
for meeting3 of various parochial:.organizationsand for Sun-
day School class room, and a room for choir practica. V&en
not Otherwise shgagsd, ths hall was 1st for hire t0 reputable ‘,
psrtias for such purposes as u&stings of sOciatias, lectures,
musical recitals, ard private dancing parties.
The court acknowledged the general rUl3 Of Strict
construction of axasption Statutes, but added: “If the so-
called ‘rule Of strict construction’,as applied t0 statutes
exaapting certain Property from taxation, ia SO strictly
3pr:liad33 t0 render the exempting language so nsrrO:v3hd
rsstrictad 3s t0 defeat the apparent lagisl3tivspurpose.
it ia clear that too much sacredness is attached t0 3 mare
rule, 3nd that it should be aithar abrogated Or 3p.:lisdwith
.
‘:
-
Honorable Homer D. Eck - page 4
aor3 liberality and r3ason.3 The court held that occasional
us33 of the building for secular purposes did not make the
property taxable and that it was exempt. This case is cited
as text authority in 26 R. C. L. 325.
The case of Shaarai Berocho v. Mayor, etc., of City
of IJewYork, 18 N. Y. S. 792, construed a statute exempting pro- j
perty 33xcluaivelyused for purposes of public v~orahip,~~The
ground floor of the building in question was used as a syna-
gogue. Whe second floor was mainly used as a place for r3-
ligioua services or instructionon mornings and afternoons
during the week, and for Sabbath School exercises on Satur-
day &ernoon and Sunday morning." Part of this floor was
used as an office by the church treasurer and the trustees.
On tha third floor, there were living quarters of the janitor
and his family, also a reception room used for trustees' meet-
i&a, and a room for the archivEa and the synagogue perayh3r-
-. nalia. 'It was held that th3 premises were axempt.
-.
In the case of Rsrriaon v, Guilford County, 12 S.R.
(2d) 269, (N.C.), the Statute exe,zptedproperty %?holly and
$XClUaively used for religious worship , . . together with
. . . . adjacent land reasonablynecessary for the convenient
use of any such building,t9A R3ptist church purchsaed a lot
several blocks from the church. Said lot VBS %aed only by
Sunday School classes and organizationsof the church as a
place for holding outdoor meetinga.ff The court said: "The
aPJ33d facts show that the lot is reasonably necessary for
the convenient us3 of tha church, and is wholly and excluaiv3-
ly uasd for religious worship.3
In the caaa of First Unitarian Society v. Tolvnof
Hartford, 34 Atl. 89, (Corn.),the Statute exempted property
noccupied 33 a church.3 Th3 audience room of the "Unity Church
and t;all"was constructedalong the architectural pattarn of
3 theatsr. The religious aociaty, in addition to conducting
worship 33rvic33 in said auditorium, derived five or six
hundred dollars a gear renting out the auditorium for 18ckJres,
concsrta, and other entertainnanta,and, at times, politic31
convent ions.
In that case, ths couritsaid:
" The policy on which tha exemption of
church &ii&a from tsxation is granted is th3
encouragemantof religion;3nd that policy is not
. -
Honorable Homer D. Zck - page 5
.
hindered, but, rather, promoted, by permitting
this building to be used for profit when not
needed for those services distinctly called
3r31igioua 33rvic333; for literary, scientific,
or entertaining exercises, or for.any other
thing not inappropriateto be had in a church.
In earlier times in this state, and in all the
New England states, the church--commonlycalled
the WeetinghouaeW--was customarily used for
tom meetings, lectures, concerts, tempsrance
meetings, political addresses, and for other
like special occasions; and no one 3ver aup-
posed that such use made the m33tinghouse
liable to taxation. In the country to;lnathe
like use still pr3vails. In view of such
. general use, it is not to be supposed that the
.-. legislature intended, by any language it has
used, to mske all such church buildings taxable.
Ye think Unity Church and Hall is exempt from
taxation.
3313 also in R3 Zinzovi,43 N.Y.S. 714.
In the light of the foregoing authorities, it is our
opinion that the hall inquired about in your letter is exempt
from taxation.
Yours v3ry truly
J. Arthur Sandlin
Aaaiatsnt
JAS:ddt:zd