65 A.2d 700 | N.H. | 1949
The following resolution was adopted by the House of Representatives at the present session of the General Court on March 11, 1949:
"RESOLVED, that the Justices of the Supreme Court be respectfully requested to give their opinion upon the following question of law:
"Is House Bill No. 164, An act relating to the general exemption from property taxes of certain privately owned airports, constitutional?
"Further resolved that the Speaker transmit a copy of this resolution and a copy of House Bill No. 164 to the Clerk of the Supreme Court for consideration of the Court."
The following answer was returned:
To the House of Representatives:
The undersigned the Justices of the Supreme Court have considered the inquiry contained in your resolution with reference to House Bill No. 164, entitled: "An Act Relating to the General Exemption from Property Taxes of Certain Privately-Owned Airports," and submit this opinion in answer thereto.
Section one of the bill is a legislative declaration of purpose and finding "that use by the public of certain privately owned airports is necessary for the proper operation of the state airways system and that the encouragement of the owners of such airports to make them available for public use is therefore desirable." Section two of the bill provides as follows: "The owner of a privately owned airport having facilities available for public use who holds, as of April first of any year, a license for such airport from the New Hampshire Aeronautics Commission, shall be exempt for each such year from taxation of the landing area used in connection with such airport."
The bill must be considered in the light of existing legislation. The state airways system consists of all air navigation facilities ". . . available for public use . . . whether publicly or privately owned" for which the ". . . expenditure of state funds . . . serves a useful public purpose." R. L., c. 306, s. 12 as amended by Laws 1947, c. *550
281, s. 3. Such legislation was considered valid in Opinion of the Justices,
If the proposed bill is a general exemption from property taxes as stated in the title, there is no question as to its validity. "There is no doubt that the legislature may provide, by general laws, for the exemption of certain classes of property from taxation, as well as exempt it, in fact, by omitting it in the description of property required to be taxed." Brewster v. Hough,
If the proposed bill in fact is a special exemption, it is unlike the one in Eyers Woolen Co. v. Gilsum,
In the present case the benefit to the public is not only considered by the Legislature to be direct but the private airport owner is required in effect to dedicate his property to public use as a condition to receiving the tax exemption whether it is general or special. These factors further distinguish the invalid tax exemption considered in Eyers Woolen Co. v. Gilsum,
The proposed exemption is not proscribed by the provisions of Article 5 of the Constitution which were added by the amendment of 1877. The limitation thereby imposed is upon legislative power to authorize gifts by towns to corporations organized for profit. It does not extend to the authority of the Legislature by its own act to provide a uniform exemption of state-wide application such as is proposed by this bill.
The greater extent to which the Legislature allows tax exemptions must necessarily result in a greater burden on those who do pay taxes. While such inequality presents no constitutional question if "it reasonably promotes a matter of the general welfare" (Rosenblum v. Griffin,
While we do not pass on the wisdom or advisability of the proposed bill, it may be helpful to note that the bill as drafted is unnecessarily ambiguous. It may not be clear to either the taxpayer or the tax collector whether (1) the exemption is limited to the "landing area" with or without buildings thereon and (2) whether such area is available for public use upon payment of fees or is to be "free" as provided in Maine Laws 1947, c.
Your inquiry concerning House Bill 164 is answered in the affirmative.
OLIVER W. BRANCH. FRANCIS W. JOHNSTON. FRANK R. KENISON. LAURENCE I. DUNCAN. AMOS N. BLANDIN, JR.
April 12, 1949.
