Citation Numbers: 54 A.2d 710, 134 Conn. 1, 1947 Conn. LEXIS 162
Judges: Maltbie, Bbown, Jennings, Dickenson, Inglis
Filed Date: 7/9/1947
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/3/2024
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Common Pleas from the action of the board of tax review of the defendant town in placing its property on the tax list, claiming that it was exempt, as belonging to a Connecticut corporation organized exclusively for educational purposes, under 1163 of the General Statutes. The trial court sustained the action of the board and the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
Previous to 1925, our statutes had for many years included a provision exempting from taxation "buildings or portions of buildings exclusively occupied as colleges, academies, churches or public schoolhouses," with an addition made in 1921 to include "the land on which they stand." General Statutes, *Page 3
Rev. 1888, 3820; Rev. 1902, 2315; Rev. 1918, 1160; Public Acts, 1921, Chap. 109. We considered the scope of the exemption in Yale University v. New Haven (1899),
In 1925, a special commission appointed under authority of the General Assembly particularly to *Page 4 study exemptions from taxation made a report, and as a result an act was passed which, in place of the general exemption of colleges, academies and schools quoted above and certain other institutions, contained a provision which, although somewhat altered in detail by chapter 319 of the Public Acts of 1927, is essentially the same as that now found in 1163 of the General Statutes. Subject to certain other sections of the statutes not relevant to the issue before us, subsection (7) exempted "the real property of, or held in trust for, a Connecticut corporation organized exclusively for scientific, educational, literary, historical or charitable purposes or for two or more such purposes and used exclusively for carrying out one or more of such purposes and the personal property of, or held in trust for, any such corporation, provided (a) any officer, member or employee thereof does not receive or at any future time shall not receive any pecuniary profit from the operations thereof, except reasonable compensation for services in effecting one or more of such purposes or as proper beneficiary of its strictly charitable purposes, and provided (b)" that a quadrennial statement of the claimed exemption shall be made to the taxing officials.
Since the adoption of the 1927 act we have decided four cases directly involving claims by institutions that their property was exempt as devoted to educational purposes. In Canterbury School v. New Milford,
In the cases decided by us under the statute as it stood before the 1927 amendments, the question was as to the institutions which the legislature intended to include in the general word "academy." As long *Page 6
as the exemption was expressed in such a general word, it was our right and duty to inquire what institutions it was the intent of the General Assembly to include in that word; it was our conclusion that the General Assembly could not in reason have meant that every institution falling within the scope of the general terms of the statute should be entitled to an exemption, but that it must have intended the law to apply only to institutions having characteristics which would bring them within the purposes for which exemptions from taxation are ordinarily granted; and, accordingly, we construed the broad words of the statute to be inapplicable where those purposes were not being served. See National Fireproofing Co. v. Huntington,
In omitting the previous general provision as to colleges, academies and public schools and in bringing them within the broad scope of "scientific, educational, literary, historical or charitable institutions," the act indicates clearly an intent to do away with any such test. See Westport Bank Trust Co. v. Fable,
For us to import into the law a requirement that a school, to be exempt, must not only come within the terms of the statute but must also appreciably relieve the state of the burden of educating the children within it would be to add a limitation which the General Assembly not only has not made but which it refused to make. When the General Assembly has undertaken to state definitely the requirements necessary to secure an exemption, we cannot read into them other requirements having no sanction in the language it has used. Simmons v. Holcomb,
The defendant's contention that to construe the act as we have done would make it invalid as in effect *Page 9
a use of public funds for private purposes is without merit. Education in itself serves a public purpose. Lyman v. Adorno,
It is unnecessary to consider at any length the facts involved in the case before us. Unattacked conclusions of the trial court are that the plaintiff was organized exclusively for educational purposes and that it met the express requirements of the statute under which it claimed exemption; but the court denied its claim on the ground that its property was not devoted to public use because it did not perform functions which otherwise would devolve upon the state or municipal government. This conclusion was based upon findings that the school was largely for boarding pupils, although it took a few day pupils; that its charges were relatively high; that it did not give much scholarship aid, and in bestowing that aid no preference was given to students from Connecticut; and that the larger number of pupils came from outside Connecticut and few came from the defendant town. As the plaintiff was found fully to comply with the requirements for exemption stated in the statute, it could not properly be denied relief on the ground taken by the trial court.
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded with direction to sustain the plaintiff's appeal and order the board of tax review to strike the plaintiff's property from the tax fist.
In this opinion JENNINGS and INGLIS, Js., concurred.
City of Stamford v. Town of Stamford , 107 Conn. 596 ( 1928 )
Edgewood School, Inc. v. Town of Greenwich , 131 Conn. 179 ( 1944 )
Baker v. Town of West Hartford , 89 Conn. 394 ( 1915 )
Lyman v. Adorno , 133 Conn. 511 ( 1947 )
Stamford Jewish Center, Inc. v. Town of Stamford , 117 Conn. 379 ( 1933 )
Dorman v. Carlson , 106 Conn. 200 ( 1927 )
Canterbury School, Inc. v. Town of New Milford , 111 Conn. 203 ( 1930 )
Connecticut Junior Republic Ass'n v. Town of Litchfield , 119 Conn. 106 ( 1934 )
State v. Nelson , 126 Conn. 412 ( 1940 )
Corbin v. Baldwin , 92 Conn. 99 ( 1917 )
Pomfret School v. Town of Pomfret , 105 Conn. 456 ( 1927 )
Female Academy v. Town of Darien , 108 Conn. 136 ( 1928 )
Simmons v. Holcomb , 98 Conn. 770 ( 1923 )
National Fireproofing Co. v. Town of Huntington , 81 Conn. 632 ( 1909 )
Herald Publishing Co. v. Bill , 142 Conn. 53 ( 1955 )
Klapproth v. Turner , 156 Conn. 276 ( 1968 )
Camp Isabella Freedman of Connecticut, Inc. v. Town of ... , 147 Conn. 510 ( 1960 )
Walsh v. Jenks , 135 Conn. 210 ( 1948 )
Little v. United National Investors Corporation , 160 Conn. 534 ( 1971 )
Legat v. Adorno , 138 Conn. 134 ( 1951 )
Verde Valley School v. County of Yavapai , 90 Ariz. 180 ( 1961 )
New Canaan Country School, Inc. v. Town of New Canaan , 138 Conn. 347 ( 1951 )
Arnold College for Hygiene & Physical Education v. Town of ... , 144 Conn. 206 ( 1957 )
State Ex Rel. Butera v. Lombardi , 146 Conn. 299 ( 1959 )
Snyder v. Town of Newtown , 147 Conn. 374 ( 1960 )
Summ v. Zoning Commission , 150 Conn. 79 ( 1962 )
Hartford Hospital v. City & Town of Hartford , 160 Conn. 370 ( 1971 )
Red Top, Inc. v. Board of Tax Review , 181 Conn. 343 ( 1980 )
Faith Center, Inc. v. City of Hartford , 39 Conn. Super. Ct. 142 ( 1982 )