February 9, 1967
Honorable Joe Resweber Opinion No. M-21
County Attorney
Harris County Re: Tax statue of building
Houston, Texas owned by the Diocese of
Oalveeton-Houston, Roman
Dear Mr. R&weber : Catholic Church.
In connection with your request for the opinion of this
office on the above-captioned matter, you have furnished u6
with numerous facts. The pperty which occasioned your request
is known a8 the “Chanbery, located at 1700 San Jacinto Street,
Houston, Texas. We quote the following excerpt from the Memo-
randum Brief which accompanied your request:
“The Aseeeaor and Collector of Taxes,
Rarrie County, Texas, by letter, furnished
the following Information:
“‘It is noted that the City of’ Houston
has rejected the request for the bulld-
lng, known aa the Chanaery, which is
used for the following purposes:
t“(l) Office to conduct the necessary
work of maintaining the Diocese
of Galveston-Houston, including
its seminary and orphanage;
))'(2) Office’of Superintendent of
Catholic Schools of the entire
diocese;
"' (3) Office of the Matrimonial Tri-
bunal of the diocese;
“‘(4) Offices for the Catholic Youth
Organization, the Saint Vincent
de Paul Society, the Confraternity
- 86 -
Honorable Joe Resweber, Page 2 (M-21)
‘of Christian Doctrine, the National
Council of Catholic Men, the National
Council of Catholic Women and the
Diocesan Catholic paper;
“I (5) Meeting rooms for Catholic organi-
zations;
“‘(6) Residence of the Chancellor and
three other priests;
‘I’(7) A chapel where religious services
for the public are held .I”
In the MemorandumB??lef which you have furnished us, you have
concluded that the property in gueation is not entitled to an
exemption from state and county ad valorem taxes under Section
5 of Article 7150, Vernon’s Clvll Statutes.
Section 2 of Article VIII of the Texas Constitution
authorizes the Legislature to exempt certain classes and types
of property from taxation. The pertinent provieions of this
section read as follows:
the Legislature may by general
laws, eximl;t from taxation actual places
or [of] religious worehlp, &o’any property
owned by a church or by a strictly religious
society for the exclusive use as a dwelling
place for the ministry of such church or reli-
gious society, and which yields no revenue
whatever to such church or religious society;
provided that such exemption shall not extend
to more property than is reasonably necessary
for a dwelling place and in no event more than
one acre of land; . . .”
The following provisions of Article 7150, V.C.S., were
enacted in pursuance to the above quoted authorization:
:.,
“The foi‘iowing property shall be exempt
from taxation; to-wit:
“1 . Schoole and Churches -- Public
School houses and actual places of religious
- 87 -
.
. .
,Iionorable Joe Resweber, Page 3 (M-21)
worship, also any property owned by a church
or by a strictly religious society, for the
exclusive use as a dwelling place for the
ministers of such church or religious society,
the books and furniture therein and the grounds
attached to suah buildings neaeasary for the
proper occupancy, use and enjoyment of the same,
and which yields no revenue whatever to such
church or religious society; provided that such
exemption as to the dwelling place for the minls-
tars shall not extend to more property than Is
reasonably necessary for a dwelling place and
In no event more than one acre of land . . . .‘I
An additional provision for exemption is contained in
Article 7150b, V.C.S., whioh reads as follows:
“There Is hereby exempted from taxa-
tion any property owned exclusively and in
fee by a church for the exclusive use as a
dwelling place for the ministry of such church
and which property ylelde no revenue whatever
to such church; provided that such exemption
shall not extend to more property than is rea-
sonably necessary for a dwelling place and in ‘5
no event more than one acre of land; and pro-
vlded further, that the fact that the ministry
uses a portion of the dwelling as their study,
library or office shall not prevent the property
from being considered as being used exclusively
as a dwelling place. For purposes of this Act,
‘church’ includes a strictly religious society;
and the ‘ministry of such church’ means those
persons whose principal occupation is that of
serving In the clergy, ministry, priesthood or
preebytery of an organized church or religion,
c whether they are assigned to a local church
,parish, w-wwgue , cathedral or temple or to
some larger unit of the church organization and
whether they perform administrative functions
or not. ”
In reaching your conclusion that exemption should be
,denied, you make the following statement:
- 88 -
honorable Joe Resweber, Page 4 (M-21)
“The property in question and the organi-
i zition occupying same is in many respects
similar to the property for which an exemp-
tion from State and County ad valorem taxa-
We do not regard Daughters of St. Paul, Inc., as decl-
‘sive of the question here under consideration. In that case
the court was concerned with whether a building owned by a
,non-profit corporation whose prlmary purpose was distribution
of Roman Catholic literature and religious articles principally
by sale but also by gift to the general public was exempt from
ad valorem taxes. The building was used exclusively by the cor-
poration for sale of books and for nuns’ living quarters. The
court held that, under the facts, the property waa not exempt
as an “institution of purely public charity” within the meaning
of that phrase as it is used both in Section 2 of Article VIII
of the Texas Constitution and Section 7 of Article 7150, V.C.S.
Since there la a chapel In the Chancery where religious
services for the public are held, we think different provisions
of both the Constitution and the statutes ars applicable, to-wit:
the provisions for “actual places of religious worship.” We
assume that In order for religious services for the public to be
held, the Roman .Cathollc liturgy and ritual la practiced
regularly in the Chancery, that 10 is open to the public and
meets all requirements of canon law relative to churches. It IS
certainly not uncommon for churches to have rooms available for
other church activities In addition to the sanctuary. The other
activities which you have described and which are being carried
on in the Chancery are not inconsistent with work of the Church,
and we do not think that the fact that they are carried on In
the same building which houses the actual place of religious
,worship results in a loss of the tax exemption.
We are further of the opinion that the Chancery might
well be exempt under the provisions of Article 7150b, which
specifically provide that the “ministry of such church” includes
persons serving in the clergy, ministry, priesthood or presby-
tery of an organized church or religion, and further specifically
provide that they need not be assigned to a local church parish
in order to qualify for the exemption, but may be aaelgned to
.‘,.‘~“~sople,larger unit of the church organieation, as is true in the
ease here under consideration.
- 89-
c .
Honorable Joe Resweber, Page 5 (M-21)
We do not think that the fact that the Chancery is not
used exclusively as a dwelling place by the Chancellor would
preclude exemption. It seems clear that the Legislature intended
that the living quarters for the ministry of a church were to
be exempt; so we cannot see that If a parsonage were attached
to a church It would lose its exempt status as not being used
"exclusively" as a dwelling because of the church, or that
the church would lose Its exemption as an actual place of rell-
glous worship because of the parsonage.
Analogous reasoning was used in Attorney Qeneral's
Opinion No. O-4909 (1943), which held that a school which con-
tained a chapel was exempt from ad valorem taxes, We quote
the following from page 2:
"Clearly the property in question is
tax exempt unless It be decided that the use
of the chapel for religious exercises, In
addition to the use of the entire building
for school purposes, destroys the exemption.
The building if used exclusively for either
purpose would be tax exempt and we are not
prepared to hold that the concurrence of the
two exempt uses renders the property liable
to taxation. "
Attorney General's Opinion No. O-6211 (1944) held exempt
from ad valorem taxes a building owned by a church situated on
the same tract of land as the church building and dwelling place
of the minister. The hall in question was used for "parish
meetings, meetings of Catholic Societies, Maternity Guild,
Catholic Action, Catholic organizations, Catholic Union of Texas,
religious instruction to children, socials; plays and once to
twice yearly picnic dinners and dances are held;"
In holding, as we do, that the Chancery is exempt from
ad valoreti taxes, we specifically limit our holding to the
partl,cularfacta submitted for our consideration.
SUMMARY
Under the submitted facts, the building
known as the "Chancery" owned by the Diocese
of Galveston-Houston, Roman Catholic Church,
- 90 "
Honorable Joe Resweber, Page 6 (M-21)
is exempt from ad valorem tax. Section
2, Article VIII, Texas Constitution;
y+cp; 7150 and 7150b, Title 122, Ch.
) . . .
Ycp@s very truly,
C. MARTIN
General of Texas
Prepared by Marietta McGregor Payne
Assistant Attorney! General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Hawthorne Philllps, Chairman
W. V. Geppert, Co-Chairman
Arthur Sandlin
Ralph Rash
Malcolm Quick,
Kerns Taylor
Staff Legal Assistant
A. J. Carubbi, Jr.
- 91 -