Case Information
*1 ._ 481 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS Elonorablr 0. &rtt Potter
County Attorney
San Patrloio 0ou.W Slntoa, Taxer
Doer Slrl
Wo aro in room 1940, in rhloh thlr depsrtnwiai whOth6r or a1tr of corpus Chrlrfl
rbrrrrolr ~urposrr ir 8hall ba aqua1 an6 Oi 8ubjOOt8 rlthla tho 7l4 tar but law, rr4mp t J we4 Sor pub110 put- 11 Of tb
Of ktiOl0 ~OlWtitUt;Oll Oi FOX88 aitiO8 an6 tomu, robarty of OOUnti@I, 14 oall pub114 purpose8, ruoh a8 rod 8it.8 tber*tC'S~ sir0 @D&38 $hO bUi:diIwr an4 th8 furnihrb theraoi, an6 all gropr?t7 uad, or $ublio grounU8 and 1ntantWl io r l %tln&al8hinu firrr, all othr property d8tOtd 8xo1urirr1~ to the 010 bmrilt Of 8hr FUbliO rhall b@ xampt *Or fOrO4d rrlr and froa fixation, proridrd, nothln hsrbla ohs11 ah8 enforo4!BWlt of tbr v4ndOr8 1 8n, P protent th0 uoh8niO8 Or bullb4t8 lien, Or other 110138 DOW Jl8Slllg.~ *2 !
I ! .
Honorable 0. Burtt itttar, k--g4 &
Artlola 7180 of R4rls4Q “1 v vi1 $tatut44 of Texer, rradr in part a8 fO11OW8l *The followln~ rhsll bo exempt property
rr0m tax4tlon, to-rltr
a440
'4. Pub110 property - rll property, whether real or ?erron41, belon(rln(( xolurir41~ to thi8 State, or my po+l$tfiel thereof, the United rubdltirlon Stat48,
Th4 Esrtlend Court Of Civil Appal8 1n the 0~4 or City of ~4bllenr vs. State 113 5. ii. (ti) 631, nit OS error by th0 3Upr4ZI4 Court, Oonatruad t& above quoted di8Pi844d portion8 0r the Oonrt1tutlon of feras and krtlcle 7160 ln oon- motion r1th tbe exsfiptlon oi Property purohassd by tho City puipoaar of-a keaerrolr, whloh i)urpos4 ii oi Abllenr far ldantfoal with tb8 property la belw the on4 for sbiob used bOT&Ml8 S3riatl in yollr naae. tho City OS The oourt rtstod (I8 rOiiWd8 I w+ ” There oonsldsratlonr le?d.ys to _ . oonolu8lon that 88 to tn4 poa~3r Or ta4 Iagls- xeapt pub110 property from tsxatlon, laturo, all ruoh property rhould be regarded a8 ‘used Sor pub110 mOS48' n&n it 18 Owned azid held for publis purp0S4S, but not ownad or held orolualr4l~ ror 8uoh purp0serl 4nd fhgr$ haS keen a0 obsndon- nent of ruoh &mfOO8Wv our view tbct
“* l l It 18, tbrrorore, when thr SeObB @ire13 0460 rstebllrh
onrrerShlp cl property by 4 munlolpal corporation, rhloh ha8 t44B ropu1r.d for l 0 ruthorlzed pub110 purpose, tkb purpose ior wh1oh it 18 wened -“end held ha8 not b44n rber,doneb, ruch property
18 to b4 rrgardrd 48 us4d for pub110 purposoa, and the Ia.gl~n)aturo hSr pO%er proridr tp, 4" wnerrl law for It8 sxemptlon from t6xhtlon. beforr pro;ertr 1r tax 0X42&t pro;osltion
it ha8 to be botb osmd and held pub114 p~cpoeer wa8 an- nounoad t%! tiupreme Court of Tessa in Sn oplnlon w'rlttrn by Justlor Gainer in the oaie Or Morris t8. tin4 Star Chaptor The Court rtatrd a8 fQllOw8l No. 31x, s 3. w. s19.
Honorable C. Furtt rotter, pare 3
.Thle poaltion ia also uatelned by the nslo(ly of thr aeotlon, whloh oxeagta pro;rrty aountlr~, 8nd town,. Tbr exeaptlon oitlsr, lr llmitod to thrir property owned an6 told only for euoh ee pub110 bulldlncr and l lter pub1 lo purpooar , thereicr.’
The aam proporitlon or law wa8 announoed by the Ecau..nt Court or Clrll ~ppeala in the oaae or ;an Antonio In- d4pender.t 5oho01 Xstrict va. :;rter k’crke Eoerd of Trustee@, The Court etated a8 follows: 120 2. ‘i;, (cd) 681. a * l * The deoislon of thla oaoe turne of whether or not the Xater
upon t>e a018 ;uastlon L‘lty or z:an aa- Xorks Lyzten, w!?loh supplier tonio lr ‘0%ned and held’ by tha Zlty of San antonlo 80 88 to oom vilthln the protlslons 0r the -tste Constitution mhioh exaapts ruoh property tsxct~on. * + +*
In th1.a otisa we have both ths o\imr of the property, e private indlvl~iusl, n-k1oh 1s t>e City Corpus sn;l a lessee, Chrlsti. Thererore we 0311 your ettectloa to Artlole 7171 0r the Revlaad Xrll jtstuter oi Tcr~s, RhlOh reudr as iollOzce:
“All real property subject to taxation thereof In rhell be aaaeased to the omera mmer herein provided but no assesment of real property ahall be oom awed Illegal i by realon or the an.1 aot being llatod or rse88ed la the neze of owner or owrrme thereor.” ap llcable ru?a of lar we8 laid dam by the 3qre.m Zourt 0r Tares in an opinion n’rittaa Chief JI;:tlce
tayt:n iti the o~.se of 1)EuFherty vs. ?hcmFscn, 71 Ter. l9fi, zhs Ccjurt st-.tsa at3 r0ii04~
“The ue:-ersl rule la thtt ttmanar of ma1 upon t&a ectlre at.tte leesed valur Or is trx*blr property a::2 ttir aetlstle4 the oon~tit*~tlcnal
reguirr;ent that ‘611 property in this atate, whe- thtr orntd by n?ltursl fsrrone or cor~or%tloaS, otb.ar ahsll be taxed in proportion lta than munlolpal, vtlue*”
- [484] Honorable 0. Burta Potter, pegr 4
3~ answering year qwstlon la this OOS*, m aurt sonsldor the tax as belag asseresd against ths omar and as bslng a llablllty oa~hls part daspltr the Saot that uodor the _ ._. ths City Qorpos Ohrletl has oontraotea m leans oontraot
ay all taxes that mar baoonw due. V!o 60 not belier. then 8 any quastloa but that if thls gropart~ was owned by ths 1 Oltf oi Corpus Ohrlsti the saaa woul6 met the ssnstltutional. of property being onaed and bald only ior publie
nqulremsats achy& ,“,:; “,$-g~~~,““,~,o,,’ ggg-,‘Y,t*‘p’gP;’ D. ~8~ llatar Korks Board oi Trusties, suprai and San &toalo*I.*S.
However, under the iaots you l ubmlt propertyb not Oitr of Corpus ChrIsti but 1s owaed by an lndlrldual %%*br who has privately leased ths saras to suoh oity. Xe do not exemption as quoted ballerr that the oonetltutIonal stetutor~ above and as interpreted by ths oases above olted would apply in your oaaea To thIn.k ths dlsoneaion la the oass of Cltr of Dallas tar Ooohraa, 166 3. ‘U. 32, IS pplloablo In this sase.
In that oaso a private lndltldual had laaaed property to a ohuroh and he tbarsfora ooatendad that ths property was tax exempt under the authority o? Seotloa t of ATtlols 8 of the Oonstltutlon or Texas. Court atatad as follows1
Vha Saot thet tha le8aee used tbr pramlees under a rantal oontraot ohuroh purpoeos would tte owner, 01aImIng the be opposed by the faot wet to ths exe=ptlon, was hkueali putting his property UIS 0r private galxba
A llka sltuetlon was dlsoussed by ths Supreme Court Texas In the oase 31 Rsd vs. MOrrlS, 10 3. 1. 881, Juetloe In dlaouasine the proposltloa the property would Cainas. hare be owned by the sob001 in order to bs tax xampt Court stated as followsr “iie think, that pursuant the same policy, to
tba Laglslature, meant, tha mployzaant of tha term of tha OonetltutIoa, to prerrnt the owners of proport iron taklag adrantaga oi the xemptloa, when thry leased proparty1, others tar profit, ba used by the latter ror maIateaanoe 0r eohools.W
The Attorney Ganeralta Departnsnt In an opinion written by Assistant Attornay Oaneral Joa f. Alsup, to Bonoreble Oherlas 2. Raagan, Dletrlot Attornsy, ?a118 County dated that was pr tataly Tebruery 1, 1935, held that a bullding I *5 . .
. [*]
Bonombls C. Burtt Potter, page 8 purposes was not exempt
owned but used for oharltabls in aa oplaloa taxation. The Attorney Oaneral~s Departaant wrlttaa by Anthony Msnlaouloo, Charles Br Thompson, “Xla- burg, Texas, dated yabrusry Zl, 1936, held e bulidla~ that owned but the ufe was donated to th was privately Federal Emargenay Relief MmInlstratlon was not exempt from Thls Deportmnt In Opinion 0-1bU held that where taurtloa. a lot and bulldlng which was privately owned was leasod to Tiorks Progress Adxln:etration the rams was not exempt This Departmnt also ruled in Opinion lo. from taxatloa. O-93b that bulldings
leased the Austin 3ohool of Buslaess and IUIron-Clay Cormarolel Oollege were not uenipt from taxa- tion beoause the same wers not owned by said sohools but ladlvlauals. ware leased by then from grlrate
Zt Is the opinion of this dopmtzant that under the re0t8 sub?iItted, laasad City 0r Corpus the property Christ1 ror reservoir pur>osea la not caxonpt iron ad valoran taxes.
Yor;re very truly