Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1979 )


Menu:
  •                       The Attorney                 General of Texas
    December        5,   1979
    MARK WHITE
    Attorney General
    Honorable Bob Bullock                             Opinion No.   MW-94
    Comptroller of Public Accounts
    LBJ State Office Building                         Re: Imposition of sales tax on
    Austin, Texas 78744                               improvement of realty belonging
    to an exempt entity.
    Dear Mr. Bullock:
    You have asked whether a lessee of realty belonging to an entity
    exempt under article 20.04(H), Taxation-General,   may avail itself of the
    exemption in article 20.04(Y) in making improvements to the leasehold in a
    private commercial venture.
    You cited the following fact situations:
    L        The City of Fort Worth has leased a portion of
    its municipally owned airport, Meacham Field,
    to a private party for the purpose of operating a
    commercial     aviation center.         One of the
    covenants in the longterm       lease (30 years plus
    options for additional     periods) is that the
    private party will construct, at its own expense,
    on the leased property, two airplane hangars
    and various support facilities.      The agreement
    provides that upon completion of construction,
    title to the improvements will vest in the City.
    During the period that the lease is in effect, the
    hangars and other facilities        will be for the
    exclusive use of the private party.
    2.      A church in the City of Houston owns a tract of
    land and the improvements thereon ( a building).
    The church has leased the property on a long
    term lease to a private concern.         The church
    has granted the lessee permission        to remodel
    the building to suit its business needs.
    3.      A city has leased a tract of land to a private
    utilitycompany.   The longterm lease contains
    p.    288
    Honorable Bob Bullock    -    Page Two    (m- 9 4 1
    a purchase option available on expiration.      The utility company has
    constructed and is constructing facilities    to suit its business needs
    upon the leased property.
    In each fact situation the private party wishes to purchase
    all of its construction materials tax-free.
    The exemption statute   involved is article   20.04(Y) which was added by the 1969 Act.
    It appears as follows:
    (Yl Contracts with Exempt Organizations.        There are exempted
    from the computation of the amount of taxes imposed by this
    Chapter, the receipts from the sale, lease or rental of any tangible
    personal property to, or the storage, use or other consumption of
    tangible personal property by, any contractor for the performance
    of a contract for the improvement        of realty for an exempt
    organization  as defined in Section 20.04(H) of this Chapter or
    otherwise exempt from the taxes imposed by this Chapter to the
    extent of the value of the tangible personal property so used or
    consumed or both in the performance of such contract.
    The key words in article 20.04(Y) are “the improvement of realty for an exempt
    organization.”     The reasonable legislative intent would seem to be to furnish the tax
    exemption to a contractor only in cases where the realty was improved for the exempt
    entity, i.e., at the behest of the exempt entity and to inure to its substantgbenefit.    Of
    course, in all such cases some degree of benefit will accrue to the private contractors,   if
    nothing more than the contract price for his services, but the primary and substantial
    benefit must reasonably be the improvement of realty for the exempt entity’s benefit, not
    for the lessee’s use and benefit, as appears to be the case in the three fact situations
    submitted. The inquiry turns on whether the dominant purpose of the lease contracts was
    to make such improvements for the exempt entities ce for the private lessees. Under the
    doctrine of strict construction of tax exemptions we conclude that the lessees in question
    are not entitled to the tax exemption allowed by article 20.04(Y) in the situations inquired
    about. -See Davies v. Meyer, 
    541 S.W.2d 627
    (Tex. 1976).
    SUMMARY
    Contracts with tax exempt entities for improvements by non-
    exempt persons or organizations of realty for the primary use and
    benefit of such nonexempt persons or organizations do not afford
    such contractors  the exemption provided in article      20.04(Y),
    Taxation-General.
    &erYt;@
    Attorney General of Texas
    P.   289
    .
    ,
    Honorable Bob Bullock       -    Page Three   (NW-94)
    JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
    First Assistant Attorney General
    TED L. HARTLEY
    Executive Assistant Attorney      General
    Prepared by Bob Lattimore
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    C. Robert Heath, Chairman
    David B. Brooks
    Bob Gammage
    Susan Garrison
    Rick Gilpin
    Bob Lattimore
    Myra McDaniel
    William G Reid
    Bruce Youngblood
    p.   290
    

Document Info

Docket Number: MW-94

Judges: Mark White

Filed Date: 7/2/1979

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017