38 Misc. 2d 815 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1963
Plaintiff is a domestic corporation organized exclusively for religious, charitable and educational purposes.
In 1931 plaintiff assembled a large tract of vacant land in the Borough of Queens for the purpose of erecting a high school
The plans for the construction of the high school were nearing completion in 1951 when the United States Government requested the use of the property for the national defense during a period of national emergency, commonly referred to as the Korean War.
The use of the property was donated by the plaintiff to the United States Government, and from October 25, 1951, until April 27,1955, the land was used as an anti-aircraft base. Concededly plaintiff received no rent, profit or income therefrom, although the lease recited the nominal rental of $1 per year.
The property had been exempt from taxes prior to occupancy by the Federal Government and was restored to the exempt list after the Government vacated it, but defendant levied taxes on the land for the three tax years 1953-54, 1954-55 and 1955-56.
Plaintiff brought this action for judgment declaring these taxes to be void, and, since there is no dispute as to the facts, each party has now moved for summary judgment in its favor.
Former section 4 of the Tax Law provided in part as follows:
‘ ‘ The following property shall be exempt from taxation :
“ 1. Property of the United States except property subject to taxation under the constitution and laws of the United States.
# # *
11 6. The real property of a corporation or association organized exclusively for * * * religious * * * benevolent * * * [or] educational * # * purposes, * # * and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of such purposes * * #. The real property of any such corporation or association entitled to such exemption held, by it exclusively for one or more of such purposes and from which no rents, profits or income are derived, shall be so exempt, though not in actual use therefor by reason of the absence of suitable buildings or improvements thereon, if the construction of such buildings or improvements is in progress, or is in good faith contemplated by such corporation or association. ’’
Parenthetically, it would make for a poor public policy to penalize citizens for aiding their country in time of war or other national emergency. Nor does this court believe such to be the public policy of the State of New York. (People ex rel. Astoria Light, Heat & Power Co. v. Cantor, 236 N. Y. 417.) In that case petitioner undertook to furnish buildings, labor and materials necessary for the construction of gas masks for the Federal Government at “ cost plus.” The Court of Appeals held that the power of the State to tax amounts becoming due under such a contract “ would hinder and embarrass the government in carrying out the powers conferred by the constitutional provisions ” to declare war and raise and support armies (p. 421).
Apart from considerations of public policy, however, plaintiff was entitled to the exemption even under a strict literal interpretation of the statute. In order to qualify for an exemption with respect to land not presently used for exempt purposes, plaintiff had to meet four requirements: (1) Plaintiff had to be a corporation organized exclusively for religious or educational purposes. (Concededly plaintiff met this condition.) (2) Plaintiff had to be unable to use the land because of the absence of suitable buildings. (The land was vacant.) (3) Plaintiff could receive no rent, income or profit from the land. (Concededly there was none.) (4) Plaintiff must, in good faith, contemplate using the land for a religious or educational purpose. (It did and has since so used it. Plaintiff never abandoned its intention to build a high school during the temporary occupancy of the United States Government.)
■ Thus, even the letter of the law as well as the spirit was satisfied. Plaintiff met all of the requirements for its exemption under the statute.
The case of Lebanon Hosp. Assn. of City of N. Y. v. City of New York (302 N. Y. 777), cited by the defendant, is not in point. In that case the agreement made by the hospital with the Federal Government provided for an annual rental which not only paid all carrying charges and depreciation but which
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment is granted.