432 P.3d 1071
Okla. Civ. App.2018Background
- Two Tulsa parcels (8400 and 8330) owned by PIBF and Local 798 used for a welding Training Center, administrative offices, storage, and shop work. Both had tax-exempt status since at least 1970.
- In 2012 the Tulsa County Assessor revoked the exemption after an inspection; owners appealed through the Board of Equalization and then to district court under 68 O.S. § 2880.1(A).
- District court held the 8330 parcel wholly exempt as property used exclusively for a nonprofit school; on the 8400 parcel the Training Center was fully exempt but the Administrative Building was 25% exempt.
- The court ordered refunds of taxes paid under protest consistent with those findings; assessment allocation on the 8400 property treated building plus one-half of land value for each component.
- Assessor appealed, arguing the Training Center was not a "nonprofit school" and that administrative functions defeated exclusive use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Training Center qualifies as a "nonprofit school" exempt from ad valorem tax | Property Owners: Training Center offers structured curriculum, repeated classes, certified instructors, hands-on training, and issues completion certificates — use is devoted to education | Assessor: Education alone insufficient; points to lack of accreditation/licensure, ownership by union-related entities, funding sources, and nonexclusive employment relationships | Training Center is a nonprofit school: use "devoted and dedicated" to instruction suffices; exemption affirmed |
| Whether the Administrative Building is used exclusively for the nonprofit school | Property Owners: Administrative functions support the school among other duties; partial exemption appropriate where functions overlap | Assessor: Administrative employees serve multiple funds and employers; no staff exclusively for the school, so building not exclusively exempt | Administrative Building not fully exempt; trial court's partial (25%) exemption upheld; valuation method proper (apportion land/building value) |
| Standard of review for trial court factual findings | Property Owners: Trial court findings supported by competent evidence | Assessor: Challenges sufficiency of evidence and legal interpretation | Factual findings reviewed for competent evidence; legal questions de novo; no reversible error found |
| Proper application of "used exclusively" language in exemption analysis | Property Owners: "Used exclusively" means the use to which property is dedicated and devoted | Assessor: Advocates a narrower definition (relying on unrelated statutory school definitions and out-of-state precedent) | Court applies Oklahoma precedent: focus on actual use, not name, ownership, or accreditation; narrow definitions rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Soldan v. Stone Video, 988 P.2d 1268 (affirming standard that trial findings in non-jury trials stand if supported by competent evidence)
- Fanning v. Brown, 85 P.3d 841 (de novo review of legal questions)
- In re Real Prop. of Integris Realty Corp., 58 P.3d 200 ("used exclusively" means dedicated and devoted use)
- Immanuel Baptist Church v. Glass, 497 P.2d 757 (use, not ownership or name, determines exemption)
- Cox v. Dillingham, 184 P.2d 976 (same principle regarding use as test for exemption)
- Chapman v. Draughons Sch. of Bus., 287 P.2d 903 (partial exemption and valuation guidance when exempt and nonexempt portions are not physically separable)