*1 remanding the case for Chancellor and opin- in accord with our entry of a decree
ion, remanding the whether this Court was proceed-
case to the trial court for further
ings dismissing the case. certainly not dismiss the case.
We did reopen the case
If cares the Chancellor consideration, preroga- it is his
for further
tive to do so. Petitioners will petition is denied.
pay the costs.
DYER, J., McCANLESS C. LEECH, Special Justice,
FONES, JJ., and
concur. METHODIST OF AGENTS
BOOK CHURCH, SOUTH EPISCOPAL Publication Board of Petitioners,
v. EQUALIZATION OF BOARD
The STATE al., Tennessee et of the State Respondents. OF the BOARD
The SUNDAY SCHOOL CONVEN- BAPTIST SOUTHERN Petitioner, TION,
v. EQUALIZATION, BOARD OF STATE etc., Respondents. et al., ALLEN, Assessor, and the Met-
Clifford Tax ropolitan Nashville and Government of Tennessee, Petitioners, County, Davidson EQUALIZATION
The STATE BOARD OF Tennessee, of the State of Respondent.
Supreme Court of Tennessee.
June 1974. *3 Harbison, Joseph William G. Cum- J. Trabue, Nashville,
mings, petitioners; Nashville, Minick, Harbison, & Sturdivant of counsel.
Boult, Berry, Cummings, & Conners Nashville, Agents of the Method- Book Episcopal ist and The South Board Publication of the Methodist Church. Sanford, Berry, I. Vance Val James Sanford,
Nashville, Gullett, Steele, Robin- Nashville, Boult, Merritt, son Cum- & Nashville, Berry, mings, & Conners the Southern Board of School Baptist Convention. Sitton, Law, Met- Director of
Milton H. Cochran, Government, ropolitan Carmack Nashville, Counsel, Metro- Special for The Da- politan Nashville Government Tennessee, County, and Clifford vidson Al- len, Assessor, of counsel. Tax Gen., Pack, P. Atty. Milton David M. Barry, Gen., Rice, L. Deputy Atty. William 5J7 Nashville, Atty. Gen., Davidson Asst. for The State tan Government of Nashville and Equalization County Ten- will be as “Met- State of referred to herein Allen, Metropolitan As- Tax nessee. ro.” Clifford Metropolitan sessor for the Government County will be Nashville Davidson OPINION ferred to herein “Assessor.” DYER, Chief Justice. corporation, Agents,” “Book is the real located record owner of certain estate petitions These cases involve assessed on Demonbreum Street Appeals, writ of certiorari the Court of $1,593,700.00. for taxation at a value Nashville, Section, Middle at to review Agents Book is also the record owner concerning decisions of the as- that court at personal property assessed for taxation personal prop- sessment of certain real *4 $3,014,500.00. corporation a value of The erty for taxation and claims of is the “Methodist Board of Publication” property owners that the assessed record owner real of 67-502(2). from taxation under T.C.A. § $81,200.00. for taxation at a of value originally These matters were four cases building The real includes one Chancery in filed Court with the housing printing plant, bindery and stor- a corporate property authorities and the containing age building area and an office seeking owners review judicial of the de- a basement and five floors used for offices Equali- termination of the State Board of Publishing (the of the Methodist House zation. The chancellor consolidated and Agents trade name which Book under cases, regard matters into two one with oper- of the Methodist Board Publication Baptist property owner and another ate) agencies and Methodist Church garding the property owners. Methodist Personalty library well as a and cafeteria. joint asking Pursuant to a motion consid- equipment, and inventory, includes office cases, eration to the two printing equipment. arguments heard in the cases and together assignments supporting all the of error and corporation, Baptist Sunday The School opinion. briefs considered in this Board, is the of real estate record owner Building, as the the Adminis- known Frost Agents Episcopal Book of Methodist Wing), and Building (Tower tration North Church, South, non-profit, a Tennessee Operations Building, the West and general corporation welfare will be re- and placed of Wing. The Assessor the value Agents.” ferred to herein as “Book Board $4,406,000.00 includ- (not the real estate at Episcopal of Publication of Methodist upon ing which the Sun- certain real estate welfare, non-profit, general Church is a Il- day to be or Board admits taxable School corporation linois and will be referred Personalty assessed already taxed). was herein as “Methodist Board Publica- of $1,216,200.00. for taxation at a value of tion.” con- Baptist Sunday Board School Sunday School of the Board Southern only portion a tests the taxation of Baptist general is a Convention Tennessee property including (1) the 20% corporation welfare and will be referred to programs; Building training used for Frost “Baptist Sunday herein as the School Build- of the Administration (2) 80% Board.” Sunday Baptist ing for offices of the used Metropolitan Board; Op- portion Equalization (3) Board School a “Metropolitan Building will be referred to as warehouse erations used products Equalization Board.” The storage Board and distribution of Board; (4) State Baptist will be Tennessee referred School library, used a Metropoli- Wing herein as “State Board.” The of West 82% proceed clinic, Personalty in manded and taxation accord- offices. includes All ventory equipment. guidelines ance with the announced. and office except spe- held taxable those was by the The assessments were sustained cific, items designated or areas Equalization on Metropolitan respective purposes (1) Board, corpo- appeal to the the three worship in religious “promoting belief and properties that all rations claimed practice with the doctrine and accordance Agents Book should be held of The Methodist or United Church” personalty also asserted that its assessment Sunday undertaking the Southern school excessive. Board modified was The State Baptist propagate, or ad- Convention “to Metropolitan finding, held Board’s vance, spread Gospel opinions all separate, in but identical faith which the Conven- Southern printing operations was used in promul- tion is engaged advancing and Further, held that taxable. the Board gating.” properties “properties, es- Publishing was House pro-rated use of tablished and located Nashville publication non-religious materials Agents Book made a chartered not di- used for administrative activities general corporation by the Tennes- welfare purpose” rectly were related to a Assembly Chapter see General Pub- assessment.
lic Acts of 1855. The Methodist Board *5 su- Petitions certiorari and for writs of Publication was chartered as an Illinois Chancery in persedeas then filed were non-profit corporation in 1952. by the taxing the authorities and Court necessary point It at to not stipulations that property owners. Under present corpo- a detailed of the discussion disposition the the case final would relationships purposes rate and years controlling in for the regard to taxes Rather, petitioners. it is suffi- Methodist sepa- and heard the chancellor present purposes say cient the to that rately petitions regarding property the purposes United Methodist Church Baptist corpo- and owned the Methodist range in- encompass a broad activities separate opinions, In rations. chancel- persons acquaint tended with Methodist property ad- lor determined that used for doctrine and the Christian faith. Within directly related ministrative activities publishing those are del- activities Also, was taxable. egated Publishing House Methodist pro-rated or the portion using corporate resources Book publishing or use of the used for Agents and the Methodist Board of Publi- printing secular materials non-religious cation, respective specific whose assessing was held taxable. corporate charters and outlined in the taxation, instruct- subject to the chancellor Discipline. Book apportionment should ed of value for the reli- be used allow Discipline provides The Book of gious portion by vol- comparing dollar houses shall be publishing come ume of entire dollar secular with work retired or appropriated the “benefit of respective volume business done wives, their widows preachers, disabled publishing concerns. the min- children or other beneficiaries of authorities, appropria- as the systems.” The well This pension isterial owners, by the re- sought adequate review tion made “after providing Appeals. separate argu- operation of After serves for the efficient ments, separate allowing reasonable opinions were announced business determining growth were be re- expansion.” that the causes Sunday $33,- peals. Baptist School has a net worth of Publishing House Metro and errors and 000,000.00 assigned has seven maintained a cash er- assigned four the Tax Assessor have serve since 1966. errors case and three rors the Methodist Publishing House activi- The Methodist Baptist in the case. printing dis- publishing, ties consist of raised, include issues are Publishing operations Although other tribution. Method- curricula, here whether the Sunday published under dominant issue School own, occupy and Baptist petitioners ist and publishing the name Press. Other Graded as to use the so Press Abingdon the name is done under II, under Article Section denominational, non-sectarian and includes of Tennes- Manufac- Constitution religious, general literature. 67-502(2). name, see T.C.A. turing is done Parthenon under Cokesbury is retail division and Press. II, 28 of the Constitution Article Section supplies is books and other distribution of provides State of Tennessee Printing mail and at retail stores. that: agencies although other for Methodist .done real, personal mixed printers compete All may for such business may taxed, Legislature printing is done shall be but the limited amount held and except . . such as for other customers. religious, purposes purely chari- used for Baptist Sunday is an School Board table, scientific, literary or educational agency Convention Southern gen- incorporated and was as a Tennessee retained in the clause was corporation (This
eral welfare 1921. To the Amendment ratified Constitutional delegated School Board was 1972). publish denomination’s efforts to and dis-
tribute and to assist lo- literature 67- portions of T.C.A. The material *6 Sunday programs. cal church school 502(2) are as follows: oper- Baptist Sunday School Board shall be enumerated herein systems: publishing, ates three under basic exempt from taxation: advisory distribution and Pursu- services. systems ant to n variety programs such a of ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ are including Publishing offered Broadman by any reli- (2) The real estate owned (general literature). charitable, Christian Convention or education- gious, scientific Press Publishing (denominational occupied by litera- institution al such institution ture), through Baptist distribution carrying Book exclusively or its for officers services, Stores, and special including other thereupon more of (1) out one or films, music, materials, curricular vocation- for which said institution al guidance, library exists, prop- serv- and recreational created or and the personal ices, erty any architectural advice. The used exclu- of such institution equity” sively pur- Board has a “net School of for one or more of the (1) $43,121,779.00, poses and the are used cre- revenues such institution was for which carry out its programs. ated exists. or
Petitions for writs of and as- of such certiorari But the institution signments by owner, any of error have been filed if the shall not be or stockholder, officer, employee authorities and the owners. member or petitioners, Agents Book of such institution shall receive or Publication, lawfully any pecu- Methodist Board of be entitled to receive assigned opinion niary profit operations sixteen in the from the errors of opinion rehearing by Ap- competition proper- in on of with like noted, exempt, lor no is not action was taken State
ty by others owned Therefore, any for Board that matter. compensation serv- on except reasonable question regarding such more of the Assessor’s valuation or effecting (1) in one ices of of is outside the of this beneficiaries purposes, proper scope or as charitable, scientific Court’s review. religious, strictly its if the or- purposes; or or educational issue All matters other than any such avowed for
ganization thereof
judicial
of
review
valuation
pretense
di-
guise
for
or
be
existing
accordance with
law. There
any
pe-
other
indirectly making
rectly or
fore, findings
may not
of fact
disturbed
institution,
or
cuniary profit
from such
fraudulently,
il
unless the Board has acted
employees, or
any
its members or
of
legally, arbitrarily,
ju
or in excess
its
of
or
organized
good
faith
if it be not
Express
risdiction. Hoover Motor
Co.
or
exclusively for one (1)
conducted
Commission,
Railroad and Public Utilities
purposes, the real
more of said
(1952).
229, 140 411 this S.W.2d Court (1940), (now
construed the relevant statute T.C.A. of our view determinations judicial review of actions not 67-823) allow and the courts Boards below were Equalization, scope of the State of but de this findings Board of fact and the of therefore, is, cisions regarding of the Board valuation court’s review much broader. personalty Only were held to be final. no dis record indicates that there was pute Agents regarding assessments Book have been items of what of and, argued corporations the chancel- were be excessive owned nor
521 587, 594, Equalization, inside the 210 360 S. Tenn. activities occurred garding what 458, (1962). 461 made W.2d buildings that use of disput- disputed, property. What parties, by all vigor with considerable ed exemption in Ten statutes The tax acknowledged uses of
was whether of liberally in favor are construed nessee exemp- statutory within the property were institu and educational charitable religious, “question categories as such tion. While of Peabody College Board tions. v. State “question never fact” can law” or of of 123, Equalization, 219 S.W.2d Tenn. 407 boundaries, issue involved precise Hospital, Mid-State (1966); 443 first, requiring, here a determination Nashville, 599, Inc. v. 211 366 S.W. Tenn. an exemption only then scope of a liberal (1963). 2d basis for 769 facts, exemption to the application of construction is a on the “benefit conferred simply conclusion does result in a fact not institutions, public by such a conse judicial re- allowing only appellate limited relief, quent extent, to some the burden of view. to care upon state for and advance of its citizens.” M. E. interests petition it was contended in a When Hinton, 190, 188, 21 South v. S. of v. City the case Nashville rehear 321, 322 W. Equalization, Tenn. Board of 210 State 587, 458 (1962), 360 Court S.W.2d thorough exemp- previous In a review of broadly its on had exercised review too decisions, tion statutes Mr. Justice exemption property, issue of the of certain Equal- v. Felts Nashville State Board this said: Court ization, scope supra, observed “the exemption tax such institu- substi- The record shows that did not we steadily deci- tions has been narrowed judgment tute our for that of sions this Court our successive under question pointed Board on a As of fact. 601, revenue acts.” 210 at 360 S. Tenn. opinion, 590, out our 360 S.W.2d (page W.2d at 464. question no dispute there was
458),
fact,
being
that of-
evidence
controversy is
governing
The statute
this
fered
the Board. The circumstances
carefully
ana-
the statute which
proper-
lyzed
City
of Nashville v. State
admitted,
ties
being
were used
it was
Equalization, supra,
con-
a case which
purely
question
of law whether
by the
same
cerned this
owned
came
within the
There,
Baptist Sunday School Board.
618,
the statute. 210
at
Tenn.
S.W.
2,
was said
Article
Section
2d at 472.
grant
exemp-
any
tax
does
question
qualifies
whether
tion,
public policy
any
does not establish
question
is a
authorizes,
exemption,
merely
per-
but
City
Hospital
Ridge
courts. Oak
mits,
Legislature
grant exemption
Ridge,
Tenn.App.
Oak
specified.
in the cases
at
Garner,
Rosewood,
(1967);
Inc. v.
thereupon pur- of the As was (1) one or more said earlier a detailed poses” charter, purposes of its discussion charter is neces- sary. purposes Agents Book being exclusively” for such “used Baptist Sunday Board were School set purpose, any part real of such estate Church, Hinton, out in M. E. South v. su- pur- .exclusively” “not for such so pra, and Board Nashville v. State pose, “but otherwise used leased or 587, Equalization, 210 Tenn. shall be taxed to the ex- purposes” respectively. 458 (1962), 605, tent its 210 Tenn. at value. at S.W.2d 466. The chancellor from the quoted evidence
the following summaries of the charter purposes of the owners: statutory In order be within the exemption, owner must be Agents Book Episcopal of the Methodist religious estate institution and the real Church, South, gen- was chartered as a occupied exclusively must be and used corporation eral welfare “for the manu- its exempt purposes one or more of the tracts, facture books, and distribution of charter. periodicals, etc., to make and use a com- seal, corporate
All of the real pleas- owners mon and the same to alter at Although ure; sued, estate are institutions. in this name to sue and be arrangements are corporate with, the Methodist contract and be contracted hold complex, personal estate, ines- by purchase, somewhat the conclusion and real properties deed, capable that grant, gift, bequest, devise or sell, M. E. by religious of, institutions. the same to dispose they owned 188, Hinton, Church, 92 Tenn. South v. deem best interests Sunday Baptist School S.W. volved.” Board is a institution. n n n n n n Evans, 192 School Board The Board of Publication the Meth- (1951); Nashville v. State S.W.2d 543 odist its the fol- Equalization, Board lowing : 458 (1962). S.W.2d “Religious, educational and charitable occupied by subject property All purposes, including, without limitation of Baptist Sunday religious institutions. The the foregoing, the following: per eighty School Board leases to others space of the Frost Build- cent of the floor The advancement of the cause of Chris- ing, petitioners acknowl- Baptist but tianity by disseminating religious knowl- edge taxability appeal only the tax- its edge literary and useful and scientific occupied by the it- ation books, tracts, information the form of self. periodicals, etc.” In seeking to determine whether the sub- n n n n n ¾: ject being Baptist Sunday purposes for which the were institutions School Board are set forth in its charter exist, Appeals created or the Court of as follows: relationships made detailed studies “ . . corporate for the petitioners the denomi- estab- lishment, support, governing national as well as the and maintenance of boards any Sunday corporate undertaking purposes. charter School on the Method- have, petitioners ist of said ten of their sixteen Southern Conven- tion, error, print purchase assignments taken and to and dis- issue with *9 seminate, by sale, analysis gift or litera- Appeals. made the Court
523
have made reference to
propogation
the
Prior decisions
ture for the
competition
tax-paying businesses.
Gospel
with
and the advancement
Hospital,
Nash-
Baptist
Inc. v.
faith
said Mid-State
spread
769,
607,
ville,
599,
Tenn.
366
Baptist
engaged
is
211
S.W.2d
Southern
Convention
Nashville v.
promulgating.”
(1963);
in
State
advancing
com-
supra.
presence
The
Equalization,
in
set out
view of
broad
petition
but not determinative.
is relevant
charters,
pro-
corporations
are
these
compete with
companies could
Other
flexibility
carry on
vided considerable
to
accomplish an ex-
institution’s efforts
distribution,
publishing,
activi-
and related
purpose,
the circum-
empt institutional
but
ties and the activities described in the
purpose is
may
stances
indicate
pow-
corporate
in excess
record are not
exempt.
not
ers or ultra vires.
M. E.
See
Hinton,
188, 21
South v.
92 Tenn.
S.W.
Assessor, as well as
Metro
(1893).
Equalization,
Board of
appellee
busi
argued
printing
is a secular
taxing
have made
authorities
ness,
plants
Printing
taxed as
privilege.
arguments suggesting taxation of
several
privileges
are taxable as
under T.C.A. §
subject property
all
and these conten
67-4203, Item 83. The
in Nashville
First,
require specific
tions
discussion.
Equalization, supra, con
v. State Board of
peti
attention has been called
Court’s
parking
and res
sidered the fact that
lots
tioners,
Assessor,
size of
Metro and
to the
Id.,
privileges.
taurants were taxable
petitioners.
the activities
conducted
607-608,
458.
Church or
the Southern
drew dis
Conven
properly
tion
provide
undertakes to
for its
tinction between
gener-
denominational and
*11
carry-
exclusively
occupied .
.
for
.
on whether
literature based
al
ing
thereupon
out
one
or more
(1)
to
activity adhered
or
particular book
was'
said institution
purposes
which
faith”
for
“religious
practice”
and
or
“doctrine
exists,
personal property
and the
denominations,
a
created or
such
respective
of the
more
exclusively
(1)
.
for
or
eval-
would, however,
periodic
involve
rule
purposes
for which such institution
publica-
the doctrinal content
uations of
peti- was created or exists.”
Baptist
by
tions
violate
could
and such evaluations
tioners
if
that
authorities contend
separa-
underlying the
concepts
important
any part of
any
is made
non-exempt use
Presbyterian
and state.
church
tion of
subject premises,
then all
Mary Elizabeth
Church,
States v.
United
general
requiring
is
rule
tax-
taxable. The
Presbyterian
Memorial
Blue Hull
exclusively
ability
not used
for
601,
en, law, any religious prospectively. cannot so bind itself establishment Shel- worship. byville County, mode of v. State ex rel. Bedford S.W.2d 139 urged It is that a tax Thus, the consent decree did not foreclose money for an institution that for re- uses this matter. tired constitutes Methodist ministers main- support judgment tenance and active ministers. of the chancellor is af- *12 provision subsidy This a would invalidate firmed and the case is remanded to the revenues, trial proceedings from State but it does not bar court for consistent with exemptions explicitly opinion. authorized in Article this II, Although perhaps there is Section 28.
little economic difference between subsidies McCANLESS, J., concurs. exemptions, significant there are dif- religious liberty ferences in terms of the LEECH, Special Justice, concurs with clauses. Walz v. Tax Commission New opinion. York, 664, 1409, 397 90 25 L. U.S. S.Ct. Ed.2d 697 FONES, JJ., in CHATTIN concur
part, opinion. in dissent with Finally, petitioners the Methodist LEECH, Special (concur- M.W. suggest change that a in the sta Justice ring). might tus of the institutions be barred prior legal long period A of non- events. in in the I concur the results reached assessment creates administrative con opinion I written Chief DYER. Justice great weight struction entitled to opinion primarily upon base this the deci- ambiguous. where the statute Nashville Hinton, Church, sion in 92 M. E. South v. Equalization, supra. Board State No 188, (1893); Tenn. 21 the fact S.W. 321 ambiguity exists here. operation of these facilities has changed since the date of the Hinton petitioners The Methodist cite M. E. decision; legislature and the fact that the Hinton, supra, South v. where the any change that would not taken action properties same were before this Court. Hinton, statutory construction in earlier, As however, has been discussed religious purposes. what constitutes several replaced successive statutes have the one existing in 1893 relevant The record in the instant cases shows altogether criteria are different. operation that the method of these two Equalization, Nashville v. State Board years. changed has not institutions over 596-602, supra, 210 Tenn. at Nevertheless, the tax assessor’s Thus, prior 458. determination is not principal argu- Metropolitan Government’s binding here. institutions ment that these have become powerful, too rich and thus the courts petitioners The Methodist also longer exemptions should no allow these rely on a 1962 in consent decree entered granted. which heretofore have been If Chancery County Court of Davidson true, allegation question this it is a parties wherein agreed that for 1959 legislature and not the This courts. through properties 1962 all owned question similarly in Hinton raised. Methodist Publishing House were and it in fur- will hereinafter be discussed except parking taxation lots ther detail. A cafeteria. consent decree is limited to its terms and begin analysis question, Metro and the Assessor make of this To no regarding years claims tax recognized many years should be that for 1959-1962. Moreover, governmental body acting a of these institutions governmental, proprietary exempt, not a has been thus a sud- capacity, treated tax
527
especially
of Nash
recognition by the
stitutions. This is
true
departure from that
den
Equalization, 219
Board
authorities,
ac- ville v. State
legislative
without
587,
(1961),
458
inequitable Tenn.
tion,
my opinion
S.W.2d
would
Equali
public
Peabody College v.
contrary
policy.
to this State’s
zation, 219
opinion,
upon
the lan-
S.W.2d
part,
I base this
I
Moss,
(1966). Consequently, would return
Estrin v.
guage
placed upon the statute
the construction
(1968),
wherein
S.W.2d
Hinton and leave to
Court,
and charters in
speaking through Mr.
Chat-
Justice
changes
legislature
making
any
tin,
said:
necessary
might appear to
statutory
is a
rule of
con-
“It
familiar
circum
changing
times and
result
struction, where a statute
doubtful
stances,
“exclusive
as what constitutes
construction, that
meaning
ly”
religious purposes.
“purely”
especially
interpretations,
administrative
*13
is,
following
statement from Hinton
long
unchallenged
a
they
where
are
over
main, applicable
issues in
in the
to the
time,
persuasive
period
are accorded
of
usually
these cases:
by
he
weight
the court
will
palpably
followed
erroneous.”
unless
corporation
are
purposes
“The
of
(Emphasis added).
twofold,
distribute
publish and
—to
etc.,
money
books,
therefrom to raise
sup-
foregoing
is
statement
further
objects of
support
worthy
to
these most
by
Butler,
ported
Gallagher
v.
inquire
charity. We need not
Christian
Therein,
the
out one more used or otherwise purposes, but leased CHATTIN, (concurring Justice the income purposes, whether for other part.) dissenting (1) he used for one received therefrom I concur in all Chief not, shall purposes or more of or such Justice’s- opinion, except holding therein that exempt;” not be printing press tax on the shall be legislative intent controls the con- prorated on basis of ratio of de- Mayhew, Mayhew struction statutes. v. earn- religious earnings nominational to all Tenn.App. 459, (1964). 324 52 ings. the ratio is reasonable and While fair, given right justification there is no or as a statute be construed A should any adopt ratio at all. statute word; whole, giving to each effect legislature pro- be assumed the clearly should will 67-502(2) T.C.A. Section purposely in the statute prop- used each word only personal vides that real and convey some of the words exclusively” for and that use erty “occupied” and “used
529 purely religious pur- purpose. held and used” for meaning intent and have a and a Olds, poses. Oyster Fish and Co. Anderson v. 604,
Tenn.
S.W.2d
being
was
used
Whether
exclusively
exempt purpose
for an
must be
When
entire sentence is read it is
opinion
determined from
the facts.
legislature
clear the
intended to deal with
supports
states
record
the Chief
portion only
any
situations
Justice
where “a
the determination
building
exclusively”
or lot” is “used
for
and the Court
Equalization, the Chancellor
religious purposes
remaining por-
with the
Appeals
pub-
owners
exclusively
tion leased or not so
In
used.
nondenominational,
denominational,
lish
event, only
exclusively
por-
which
ligious
literature.
and secular
exempt.
tion would be
To take the refer-
“portion any
ence
or build-
lot
Thus, it is clear the Chief
admits
Justice
ing”
apply
so as
make
presses
the printing
buildings
enterprises
happen
commercial
which
to be
they
are housed are not used “exclu-
operated
institutions,
by religious
and are
sively
carrying
thereupon
out
(1)
one
such institutions at
will for
their
more
which said
purposes,
religious pur-
secular
along with
exists,
per-
stitution was created
poses, is to violate both
statute and the
.
sonal
. used
constitution,
the statute
from which
comes.
for one
or more of the
which such institution
created or ex-
The Statute comes from Article
Sec-
ists.”
tion 28 of the Constitution which authoriz-
legislature
exempt only
es the
Likewise, the
decree of
Chancellor
pur-
“as
be held
and used
authorizing
authorities to tax
poses purely religious.”
Memo- only “to the extent of the dollar volume of
Couillens,
Hospital
rial
exempt activity
compared
with the
“pure-
(1940),
the terms
S.W.2d 1088
done
entire dollar volume
business
*15
ly”
“exclusively”
syn-
were held to be
owners,”
property
is a tacit
on
admission
onymous.
properties
being
his
were not
used
exclusively
exempt purposes.
So,
legislature
when
statute
says,
again,
time and
corpo-
“The real test
of a
determinative
predicated on
use it is
exclusive
not ex-
exempt
ration’s tax
status
use it
is the
policy
pressing
carving
exemp-
out an
property.
makes of the
legislature
simply
following
tion.
n
n
n
n
n
plain,
constitu-
clear command
tion;
“Although
(§
our statute
67-502 T.C.
giving
and is
the broadest
changes
A.)
undergone
has
several
that the constitution allows. The Method-
amendment,
re-
through
the standard
Publishing
property
ist
has a net
House
corporations
a tax ex-
quired
seeking
$33,000,000.00
worth of
North
emption
changed.”
not
Gates
has
property
net
School Board
has a
Tenn.,
Garner,
496 S.W.2d
Elk
v.
Club
equity
$43,000,000.00.
These
excess of
(1973).
printing properties of
these
extensive
industry
giants
printing
are not such
from the
possible
only
conclusion
authoriza-
as are within the constitutional
use
not
do
property owners
facts is the
very
properties,
their
na-
tion. These
properties
press
printing
respective
their
ture,
at
by their owners
held to be used
pur-
exempt
any of
exclusively for
will,
may require,
their
as the market
poses.
simply
purposes,
religious
either secular or
each of
words,
show
facts
other
cannot come within
constitutional
are,
been, property owners
it “be the
quirement
exempt property:
using
printing press
their
overrules,
“otherwise”
opinions
than
two
of this Court re-
purely
exclusively religious pur-
leased
year:
last
The East Catholic Club
poses.
Memphis
Riley
Garner,
v.
Shelby
C.
County Trustee,
al.,
et
unpublished, filed
specifically
The statute
states “the real
May 21, 1973; and North
Elks Club
Gates
* * *
property
exclusively
not so used
Garner,
v.
supra. These cases involved di-
* *
*
but leased
otherwise used for
rectly
question
here
considered:
*
**
ex-
shall not be
property
Whether
owned
empt.”
stitution, and used interchangeably for ex-
above,
plain intent of this
“As said
empt
purposes,
and taxable
any exemp-
is to
such an institution’s
Act
tion at all. The answer in each
was
case
(1)
it is both
‘oc-
only
estate
when
real
in the negative.
exclusively’ by cupied’
‘used
It is true in those cases
val-
pur-
its charter
institution for one of
ues
quite
were
small compared to those
exemption is
denied
poses;
here involved.
It is likewise true that the
others,
‘leased’
secular use of the property
probably
occupied by it but
but also to
greater
cases;
than in these
especially, in
pur-
a charter
exclusively’ for
‘not used
North Gates Elks Club. But
these fac-
do
Equalization,
pose.”
v. Bd. of
Nashville
justify
tors
ignoring
cases?
Is it
these
(1961).
587,
It is the material, the petitioner publishes secular portion of the of the activities Methodist but rather made a statement of law Publishing purely and exclu- House are publication of materials is not an secular sively religious. exempt activity. publica- particular No be ex- Publishing House shall designated tions have been secular empt only to the extent of the value court, State Board or the trial and such portion the reli- designation, applicable any publica- if institution, gious purposes said tion, must await the remand of the cause. remaining portion or other shall subject to taxation. Baptist petitioner has raised pro- questions
That or that applicability about the of certain printing terminology rated use of a opinion in this Court’s activities, publishing non-religious Baptist Sunday materials School Board’s shall constitutionality to taxation. Administra- as well as about the First, direjctly approach petitioner argues tive activities not related to used. *17 religious purpose shall likewise be sub- that the Southern Convention ject ap- “parent body” no governing to taxation. There shall be nor do portionment ex- congregational of value so to allow denominations with forms Likewise, emption government. argues as the to so much of the value exemptions religious portion represents. limiting The tax to “denominational” “parent governing will of bodies with bodies” be to the extent of the volume “specific non-religious, compared to which authorize denominational secular work programs” Tax the entire would be unconstitutional. volume of business done. exempt, organizational activity be would is not denied non-denomination- relationship the institutional bodies but to al or interdenominational are be- work must be opinion. this direct. When bodies Court, this determinations will fore This Court is mindful that this questions. The made of their tax tax institutions body” “parent governing existence of a types governmental review certain exemption. precedent not a condition endanger of their activities concepts could using property for Religious institutions underlying separation of church and insti- purposes integral work to the Therefore, respect procedure, state. exempt institu- status and retain tax tution good made the reli faith allocations indi- program for a tional authorization gious accepted should be institutions exempt particular for an that a use is cates assessment, upon evidence basis for but Likewise, institutional distribu- purpose. in bad have been made allocations general rather than distribution to tion course, faith, re may, of seek the assessor directly related public or a matter view the allocation. guides would institutions’ work particular publica- the tax status directs the chancel- Finally, the Court essence, mak- was not tions. in di- 67-1220 attention to T.C.A. lor’s § by a authorizing resolution specific ing in this recting proceedings further cause require- body a governing denominational on remand. property, but ment for tax use of activity must be di- saying that an rather LEECH, McCANLESS, M. J., W. religious program or rectly related Special Justice, concur. exempt. institution to be work of the Thus, advi- property used institutional FONES, dissenting. JJ., CHATTIN integral to an sory programs or literature