IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES
432 P.3d 1071
Okla. Civ. App.2018Background
- Two Tulsa parcels (8400 and 8330) owned by trustees of Pipeline Industry Benefit Fund and Local No. 798; properties had received tax exemptions since at least 1970.
- 8400 Property contains the Local 798 Training Center (welding school) and an Administrative Building used by PIBF and related trust staff; 8330 Property houses storage/overflow/class prep buildings supporting the training program.
- In 2012 the Tulsa County Assessor revoked the exemption after a staff tour; Property Owners appealed administratively and then to district court under 68 O.S. § 2880.1(A).
- At trial the court found the entire 8330 Property exempt as used exclusively for a nonprofit school; on the 8400 Property it found the Training Center fully exempt but the Administrative Building only 25% exempt; ordered refunds accordingly.
- Assessor appealed, arguing the Training Center does not qualify as a "nonprofit school" and that administrative operations defeat exclusive use for the school.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Training Center qualifies as a "nonprofit school" exempt from ad valorem tax | Training Center is a nonprofit educational institution: written curriculum, industry textbooks, hands‑on instruction, certified completion; open to public and IRS‑exempt | Educational purpose alone insufficient; not accredited/licensed as a school; relationship to union and funding undermine status | Held: Training Center is a nonprofit school; exemption applies (uses dedicated and devoted test) |
| Whether supporting/administrative portions of the property are exempt | Portions directly used for instruction and support (storage, prep, overflow) are devoted to the school and thus exempt | Administrative Building staff serve multiple funds and no employee works exclusively for the school, so Administrative Building is not wholly exempt | Held: 8330 Property fully exempt; on 8400, Training Center fully exempt; Administrative Building partially exempt (25%) due to mixed use |
| Proper standard for evaluating "used exclusively" under Art. 10 §6 and 68 O.S. § 2887(3) | "Used exclusively" means dedicated and devoted to school purposes; focus on actual use and function | Assessor urged narrower definitions (citing other statutory school definitions and out‑of‑state authority) | Held: Oklahoma precedent requires inquiry into dedication and devotion of use (not ownership or label); lower court applied correct standard |
| Whether trial court's factual findings are supported by competent evidence | Evidence of curriculum, instructors, certificates, facilities, and use supports findings | Challenges based on absence of accreditation and mixed administrative use | Held: Findings supported by competent evidence; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Soldan v. Stone Video, 988 P.2d 1268 (1999) (trial court factual findings in non‑jury trials entitled to same weight as a jury verdict)
- Fanning v. Brown, 85 P.3d 841 (2004) (questions of law reviewed de novo)
- In re Real Prop. of Integris Realty Corp., 58 P.3d 200 (2002) ("used exclusively" interpreted as use to which property is dedicated and devoted)
- Immanuel Baptist Church v. Glass, 497 P.2d 757 (1972) (ownership or name of institution immaterial; test is use devoted)
- Cox v. Dillingham, 184 P.2d 976 (1947) (same principle on exempt use test)
- Chapman v. Draughons Sch. of Bus., 287 P.2d 903 (1955) (partial exemptions: value of exempt portion may be deducted where exempt and nonexempt portions are not physically separable)