WILL WILSON January 7, 1960
ATIXBRNEY GENERAL.
Honorable J..R. Owen opinion Ilo. w-771
Codity Attorney
Yilllueon Cbunty Re: Whetlaer the S.P.J.S.T. Bert
Georgetown, Texa8 Hare In Taylor, Texas, 18~
exempt ,from taxation.
Dear Nr. Owen:
Tour letter of Hovember 27, 1959, statee:
“Kindly refer to your opinion number
w-453. Subsequent to t4e tire that
your above opinion was written, the
Board of Directors of the Supreme Lodge
of S.P.J.S.T. adopted a provision where-
by indigent occupants would be accepted
$2: S.P.J.S.T. Rest Home at Taylor,
We are Intoned that at this tire
there-axe no 100s charity patients at the
Home, however, If any applied, they would
be accepted.
“Ye have further been Informed that the
Home’s fee ~to lte patients is $lOO,OO per
month, but that the Home now has several
prtlen.te whose only source of income is
old age ‘pension. These patients pay only
$56.00 a month on the $100.00 fee and are
thus partially oharity eases.
“The Rest Home takes the poettlon that
In view of the above facts it ha8 fulfilled
the third requirement of your above referred
to opinion. Our Commlssionerf8 Court ha8
requeeted this office obtain a 8upplemeny
tal opinion from you whether under these,
clrcum8tances the property ie tax exempt.'
(Yote: It Is assumed that the property referred to in
the opinion requaat Is real property. Section 7 of Article
7150, V.A.C.S., which exempts property belonging to lnstltu-
tions of purely public charity, makes no mention of per8enal
property; therefore, such property Is not exempt from tUatlOB.
See Attorney Qeneralfr Opinion lo. O-5599.)
Honorable J. R. Owen, Page 2 Opinion No. WW-771
In holding that the S.P.J.S.T. Rest Home at Taylor, Texas,
did not qualify for exemption as an lnetltution of purely
public charity, Opinion No. WW-453 atated:
“The Supreme Court of Texas, in City
of Houston v. Scottlah Rite Benev,
Assn., 230 S.U. 978, held that property
Is exempt from taxation If It la both
owned and used exclusively by an lnatl-
tutlon of,publlc charity. The court
further stated that an Institution was
one of ‘purely public charity’ where,
first, It made no gain or profit, second,
it accomplished ends wholly benevo.lent,
and third, It benefited persons, Indefinite
In numbers and personaltiee, by preventing
them, through absolute gratuity, from be-
coming burdens to the State.
,“From the information that you have
preaented, It Is apparent that the property
In queetion is owned and ueed ;s;l;~;ely
by the S.P.J.S.T. Reat Mome.
Home conforms to the first two requirement0
of a ‘purely public charity’ as set forth
In the foregoing case, but fail8 to meet the
third requirement. Since the Rest Home does
not accept any resldent on a strictly charity
baais, it does not benefit persons, Indefinite:
In numbers and personalties, by preventing
them, through absolute gratuity, lrom becoming
burden8 to the State.”
An institution may qualify a8 one of purely public charity
when It dispenses ite service freely to persona in need of
such serviceu, whether they can pay or not, though such a8
are able to pay are expected to do 80. See City of Palestine
v. Hlssourl-Pacific Lines Hospital, AssIn., 99 S Y 2d 311
-CT Clv.App. 1936 error rel’d ) W. V . Geppert’ i Discussion
6fekx Exempt Propkty In Texas, kylor Law Rev&w, Volume
XI, No. 2 A tax exempt institution need not seek out its
patient8 & charitable ob,jects in the “highways and byways”.
Raymondvilla Memorial Hospital, et al. v. State, et al., 253
. . 1012 \Tex.Clv.App. 1952, ref. N.R.E.)
You state In your letter that the S.P.J.S.T. Rest Home ie
prepared to render service to charity cases on a strictly
gratuitous basis, and that It Is actually rendering partially
charitable services in that It receives payment only In accordance
1 .
Honorable J. R. Owen, Page 3 Opinion No. WW-771
with the patient's ability to pay. Coneequently, It 18 the
.oplnlon of this Office that the S.P.J.S.T. Re8t Home qualifies
a8 an instltutlon of purely public charity, and that 18 real
property i8 exempt from taxation. Thla opinion supersender
Attorney General8 Cplnlon WW-453 (1958).
SUMMARY
'me real property owned by the
S.P.J.B.T. Rcet Home 18 entitled to
tax exemption since the Rest Home qualliles
and 18 functioning a8 a "purely public
charity."
Yours very truly,
WILL WILSON
Attorney General of Texas
JBP:ca
APPFt0VE.D:
OPINION COltnITTEE:
1. V. Geppert, Chairman
;ar;et;;v;;Gregor Payne
C: Dian Daole
Charles D. Cabanlss
REVIEWBDFOR TRE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
By: Leonard Passmore
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion