dissenting.
This case appears to turn on the question of whether the Nebraska State Bar Foundation, the owner of the Nebraska Law Center building, is an educational and charitable *23organization which owns and uses a part of the property for educational and charitable purposes. Under the Constitution and statutes, exemption of property because of educational and charitable use requires that the property be both owned and used for such purposes.
The Bar Foundation is a nonprofit corporation which was organized by the Nebraska State Bar Association (Bar Association) in 1963. One of the purposes of the Bar Foundation was to construct a Law Center and make it available to the Bar Association. The Law Center was designed to house the Bar Association and organizations relating to it.
The Bar Foundation has tax-exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code, which requires that the Bar Foundation be organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes. The revised articles of incorporation of the Bar Foundation provide:
ARTICLE III
Section 1. The exclusive purpose of this organization shall be to promote the following educational, literary, scientific and charitable purposes or any of them, both directly and by gifts or contributions to any other organization whose purposes and operations are exclusively educational, literary, scientific or charitable which is qualified as an exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (or corresponding provision of any future United States Internal Revenue law), to be used exclusively for any of the following purposes:
(a) To advance the science of jurisprudence;
(b) To promote and improve the administration of justice;
(c) To uphold high standards for the judiciary and for lawyers;
(d) To facilitate understanding of and compliance with the law, and to promote the study of law, research therein, and the diffusion of knowledge thereof;
(e) To cause to be published and to distribute addresses, reports, treatises and other literary works on legal subjects, and to acquire, preserve and exhibit rare books *24and documents, objects of art, and items of historical interest having legal significance or bearing on the administration of justice; and
(f) To do and perform all acts and things which are legitimate and are reasonably calculated to promote the interests and carry out the purposes of this organization.
No part of the income or assets of this organization shall inure to the benefit of any member, officer or director, or private individual; and none of the activities, funds, property, or income of the Foundation may be used in carrying on any propaganda or political activity, directly or indirectly, or in attempting to influence legislation, either directly or indirectly____
ARTICLE X
In the event of dissolution of this Foundation, any remaining assets shall be distributed to one or more organizations described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (or corresponding provision of any future United States Internal Revenue Code).
The articles establish that the Bar Foundation was organized and intended to be a nonprofit charitable foundation, and it can only be such under its present articles.
Projects or grants of the Bar Foundation have included providing “seed money” for NCLE, publishing Nebraska Annotations to the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, financing the long-range planning conferences of the Bar Association, funding conferences on law-related education, providing grants to libraries of the University of Nebraska and Creighton Law Schools, and partially funding the meetings of law-related conferences such as the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators.
The Bar Foundation holds the Law Center building in trust for the use of the Bar Association, which as an integrated bar association is an arm of this court. The Bar Association itself is unique among organizations in that it was created by the Supreme Court of Nebraska in 1937, pursuant to a petition for integration of the Bar Association, by rule of this court. See In re Integration of Nebraska State Bar Ass’n, 133 Neb. 283, 275 *25N.W. 265 (1937).
The purposes of its creation were stated by this court as follows:
RULES CREATING, CONTROLLING AND REGULATING
NEBRASKA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION.
For the advancement of the administration of justice according to law, and for the advancement of the honor and dignity of the legal profession, and encouragement of cordial intercourse among members thereof, for the improvement of the service rendered to the public by the Bench and Bar, there is hereby organized, created and formed the Nebraska State Bar Association.
Id. at 291,275 N.W. at 269.
After the promulgation and adoption of the Rules Creating, Controlling and Regulating the Nebraska State Bar Association by this court on September 20,1937, the Bar Association ceased to be a voluntary association and became an integrated bar association.
As an integrated bar association, the Bar Association is under the control of this court and has no existence independent of this court. All lawyers admitted to practice in this state are required to be members of the Bar Association, and the Bar Association functions as an arm of this court in performing many functions necessary to the regulation and control of the practice of law in this state. The Bar Association maintains all of the records concerning the membership of the bar and collects the dues necessary to finance the operation of the Bar Association. None of the funds of the Bar Association from dues or proceeds from the sale of seminar materials are distributed to members, officers, or directors of the Bar Association. The examination and investigation of candidates for admission to the bar are handled by a commission composed of members of the bar appointed by this court for that purpose, which commission is assisted by employees of the Bar Association.
The discipline of members of the bar is under the direction of the Counsel for Discipline, who is employed by the Bar Association, but whose appointment and tenure are subject to *26the approval of this court. All of the expense of the office and for employees of the Counsel for Discipline is paid by the Bar Association. The disciplinary process is aided by the Committees on Inquiry and the Disciplinary Review Board, the members of which are appointed for that purpose by this court.
The Bar Association performs many other services which are charitable or educational in nature and of benefit to the public.
The Bar Association aids this court in the administration of justice through the Legal Services Lawyer Referral Program, which solicits participation of lawyers to handle pro bono cases for members of the public. The persons who operate this program have their offices located in the Law Center.
Under the direction of this court, the Bar Association established an Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts program, which is operated by the Nebraska Lawyers’ Trust Account Foundation. The trust foundation has its offices in the Law Center. The trust foundation is exempt from taxation under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The Bar Association has various activities which are intended to educate the public, such as the “Ask a Lawyer” television program, publications furnished to the public regarding general matters of legal concern, and a law-related education program which devises curricula for the schools which are used to instill in students the values underlying our legal system. The Bar Association employs the director of Law-Related Education, and he and his staff are located in the Law Center.
The application which the Bar Foundation filed on September 1, 1984, sought exempt status for only the 56.3 percent of the property which is occupied and used by the Bar Foundation, the Bar Association, and NCLE. The Law Center was built with expansion space which was to be rented out until the Bar Association or related activities needed it. If property is partly exempt and partly nonexempt, the value of the nonexempt portion is subject to taxation. Nebraska Conf. Assn. Seventh Day Adventists v. Bd. of Equalization, 179 Neb. 326, 138 N. W.2d 455 (1965). No claim of exempt status is made as to the part of the property which is leased to others.
In 1983, the Bar Foundation announced its intention to build a Nebraska Law Center building. The site was purchased in *27January 1984, and construction started. The building was completed, and the Bar Foundation first occupied the building in May 1985.
The construction of the Nebraska Law Center building was financed by funds which were collected by the Bar Foundation from members of the bar, and other contributors were solicited on the bases that the funds would be used for the educational and charitable purposes of the Bar Foundation and the Bar Association and that the Law Center would be available for the use of the Bar Association on a fair rental basis. The evidence establishes that it would be a breach of trust to the donors to the Bar Foundation if the Law Center was not available for use by the Bar Association.
A gift to a charitable corporation is a gift to the objects and purposes for which the corporation was organized and is governed by the rules of law applicable to charitable trusts. In re Estate of Harrington, 151 Neb. 81, 36 N.W.2d 577 (1949). See, also, Board of Trustees of York College v. Cheney, 158 Neb. 292, 63 N.W.2d 177 (1954).
As to the use of the Law Center, the record shows that approximately 13 percent of the space in the Law Center is occupied and used by the Bar Foundation itself. The Bar Foundation does not pay for the space it occupies because it owns the building. The Bar Association performs many services for the Bar Foundation, in the way of secretarial service, recordkeeping, etc., for which the Bar Foundation pays $10,000 per year to the Bar Association.
The Bar Association occupies approximately 35 percent of the space in the Law Center, for which it pays an annual rental to the Bar Foundation determined on a fair market basis.
Approximately 8 percent of the space in the Law Center is occupied by NCLE. NCLE is a nonprofit corporation which was organized by the Bar Association in 1973 to provide continuing legal education services to the members of the bar and the public. The articles of incorporation of NCLE provide:
ARTICLE III PURPOSES
The purposes for which the corporation is organized are: A. To provide, through the facilities and personnel of *28the corporation, and by financial support of other organizations as herein stated, an educational program for the study, discussion and dissemination of information relating to the laws of the State of Nebraska, United States of America, the several States thereof, and governmental units and organizations inferior to or related to any of them, and international law, for members of the Nebraska State Bar Association and interested persons not members of such Association.
B. To provide, similarly, a program for the study, discussion and dissemination of information relating to the practice of law, and the supplying of legal services in the State of Nebraska.
C. To provide research, debate, and evaluation in legal and paralegal subjects.
D. To organize and present information as to all matters referred to in the preceding paragraphs of this Article through lectures, seminars and programs in any form; to present such programs directly to the hearers, or by radio, television, or audio-visual means.
E. To publish educational materials in printed form, or as audible or visible recordings.
E To provide centralized information, direction, and assistance, for continuing legal education programs in the State of Nebraska.
G. To carry out the educational purposes of the corporation directly or by the contribution of money, property, or services to organizations that qualify as exempt scientific, literary or educational organizations under the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of the United States, or any amendment thereto, and the regulations pertaining to said Section.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the Articles, the corporation shall not conduct or carry on any activities not permitted to be conducted or carried on by an organization exempt under Section 501(c)(3), or by an organization, contributions to which are deductible under Section 170(c)(2), of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations pertaining to such actions, as they now exist or *29hereafter may be amended____
ARTICLE X
PROHIBITION OF PRIVATE BENEFIT:
LIMITATION OF ACTIVITIES
The corporation shall have no capital stock and shall declare no dividends. No part of the net earnings of the corporation or share in distribution of any of the corporate assets on dissolution of the corporation, shall inure to the benefit of any organization not qualified for tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations relating thereto, as they now exist or may hereafter be amended, nor to any member, director, officer of the corporation, or private individual (except that reasonable compensation may be paid for services rendered to or for the corporation affecting one or more of the purposes). No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be the carrying on of the propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campgain [sic] on behalf of any candidate for public office.
ARTICLE XI
DISSOLUTION
The corporation may be dissolved as provided by law. Upon dissolution or any winding up of the affairs of the corporation the assets of the corporation shall be distributed as the members shall direct, exclusively to scientific, literary, or educational organizations which would then qualify under the provisions of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and regulations pertaining thereto as the same then exist.
NCLE is an exempt organization under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Although the programs and seminars conducted by NCLE are intended primarily for the continuing education of lawyers, NCLE programs are open to the public and many of the subjects involve areas of concern to laymen. No attempts are *30made to limit or exclude nonlawyers.
NCLE offices and staff are located in the Law Center. NCLE pays rent to the Bar Foundation on a fair market basis. The Bar Foundation makes an annual grant to NCLE of $25,000 as a return of the rent.
The fact that the Bar Foundation leases space in the Law Center to the Bar Association and NCLE does not prevent the property from being used for educational or charitable purposes if the use made by the lessees qualifies as educational or charitable.
In United Way v. Douglas Co. Bd. of Equal., 215 Neb. 1, 337 N.W.2d 103 (1983), we held that the fact United Way of the Midlands leased a part of the space in the A. C. Nelson Center for Community Services to the Omaha Council of Campfire Girls and Greater Omaha Community Action did not prevent the property from being exempt from taxation. In that case, we said at 3-6, 337 N.W.2d at 105-07:
Statutes exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed, and the burden of proving the right to exemption is upon the claimant. Lincoln Woman’s Club v. City of Lincoln, 178 Neb. 357, 133 N.W.2d 455 (1965). This does not mean that there should not be a liberal construction of the language used in order to carry out the expressed intention of the fundamental lawmakers and the Legislature, but, rather, that the property which is claimed to be exempt must come clearly within the provisions granting such exemption. Y.M.C.A. of Omaha v. Douglas County, 60 Neb. 642, 83 N. W. 924 (1900).
The policy in providing for tax exemptions for charitable uses is based on the principles that tax exemptions benefit the public generally and the organization performs services which the state is relieved pro tanto from performing. 84 C.J.S. Taxation § 215 (1954). See, also, Y.M.C.A. of Omaha v. Douglas County, supra.
We first deal with the legitimacy of an exemption for the space leased to charitable organizations.
Appellant attempts to dispose of the issue by contending that since United Way received income from *31the property, it is “used for financial gain or profit to either the owner or the user” and therefore fails to meet the constitutional and statutory requirements for exemption from taxation. Brief of Appellant at 10.
It is true that in this case the difference between rentals received and cost of services furnished by United Way was $8,408. However, this does not alone disqualify the space from the exemption. See House of the Good Shepherd v. Board of Equalization, 113 Neb. 489, 203 N.W. 632 (1925).
Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 21-1901 et seq. (Reissue 1977) make up the Nebraska Nonprofit Corporation Act. Section 21-1901(3) defines a not-for-profit corporation as a “corporation no part of the income of which is distributable to its members, directors or officers.” As a Nebraska nonprofit corporation, United Way is burdened by that restriction on the distribution of its income, and there is no evidence that it has violated the statute in that respect. In City of McAllen v. Ev. Luth. Good Sam. Soc., 530 S.W.2d 806 (Tex. 1975), the court said that the proscription against an institution’s realization of “gain or profit” refers to gain or profit by private individuals or the accrual of distributable profits.
In Doane College v. County of Saline, 173 Neb. 8, 112 N.W.2d 248 (1961), the college rented college-owned faculty housing to faculty members at fair market rental rates. The college credited income from rentals after expenses to the endowment fund. This court denied exemption from property tax, having determined that the faculty housing was not exclusively used for educational purposes. However, we said that the evidence established that the faculty housing units were not owned or used for financial gain or profit to either the owner or user.
From the foregoing we deduce the rule to be that property is not used for financial gain or profit to either the owner or user if no part of the income from the property is distributed to the owner’s or user’s members, directors, or officers, or to private individuals. Applying the rule to the evidence in this case, it is clear that there was *32no financial gain or profit to either the owner or users of the leased space.
Was the leased space owned and used exclusively for charitable purposes? While we have said that it is the exclusive use of property that determines its exempt status, Nebraska Conf. Assn. Seventh Day Adventists v. Bd. of Equalization, 179 Neb. 326, 138 N.W.2d 455 (1965), the Constitution and statute also require that the property be owned for an exempt purpose. In our examination of the Constitution and the statute, we find no requirement that the ownership and use must be by the same entity. In fact, reference to “either the owner or user” in the last part of the sentence of the constitutional provision quoted indicates to us that ownership and use may be by separate entities.
In Sisters of Charity, etc. v. County of Bernalillo, 93 N.M. 42, 596 P.2d 255 (1979), the owner of the property, a charitable organization, leased a portion of its property to a wholly owned subsidiary which was also a charitable organization with the same purposes. The court granted exemption from taxes under those circumstances. The court said: “The recent trend in the United States is consistent with our holding. The notion that ownership and operation of the subject property must coincide in a single legal entity in order for property to qualify for a charitable exemption has been rejected in recent years in a number of other jurisdictions.” (Citations omitted.) Id. at 45, 596 P.2d at 258.
Ownership by United Way, a charitable organization, is undisputed; therefore, the ownership test is met.
We have two “uses” in this case: the lessee charitable organizations’ use of the leased space and United Way’s use of the leased space for income. The exclusive use of the space for charitable purposes by Omaha Council of Campfire Girls and Greater Omaha Community Action is not questioned. The real issue is whether United Way’s “use” of the leased space by leasing it to charitable corporations at substantially less than fair market rental rates is an exclusive use of that space for charitable *33purposes by United Way.
There are no Nebraska cases on point. Leases of space for business purposes have resulted in a denial of exemption in such cases as Y.M.C.A. of Omaha v. Douglas County, 60 Neb. 642, 83 N.W. 924 (1900), and Young Men’s Christian Ass’n v. Lancaster County, 106 Neb. 105, 182 N.W. 593 (1921). However, this court has also held inferentially that charges to teachers of a percentage of their salaries as rent for houses they occupied on or near school grounds did not defeat an exemption from taxes, because the property was used for school purposes. Nebraska Conf. Assn. Seventh Day Adventists v. Bd. of Equalization, supra. We determined in that case the dominant use of the houses was educational, because faculty members were required to live in their assigned residences and they used them for student meetings and counseling.
We conclude that the rental agreed to by the parties in this case shows the use of the property was not for a business purpose but, rather, for a charitable use. The result of the leases was financial assistance to the charitable organizations, which aided them in the performance of their charitable activities.
Exclusive use of property for exempt purposes is required, and it has been established in this case. That the use is by different entities is of no consequence.
The evidence further shows that the use of the Law Center by the Bar Association and NCLE is use for charitable or educational purposes.
In Nebraska Conf. Assn. of Seventh Day Adventists v. County of Hall, 166 Neb. 588, 598, 90 N.W.2d 50,55 (1958), we said:
This state is committed to the doctrine that in determining whether or not property is within a tax exemption provision, the use of the property and not the status or character of the owner of the property controls-. In Academy of the Sacred Heart v. Irey, 51 Neb. 755, 71 N.W. 752, this court said: “It is the exclusive use of the property which determines its exempt character. If it is *34devoted exclusively to educational purposes, it is not liable to taxation, unless such use is not direct, but remote. * * * The sole constitutional and statutory requirement to create the exemption is that the property shall be devoted exclusively for school or some other specified exempt purpose* * *.”
In Lincoln Woman’s Club v. City of Lincoln, 178 Neb. 357, 362-64, 133 N.W.2d 455, 459-60 (1965), we said:
This court on many occasions has passed upon the specific tax exemption provisions with which we are here concerned. It is well settled that provisions exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed; that their operation should not be extended by construction; and that the power and right of the state to tax are presumed and the exemption must be clearly granted. This does not mean that there should not be a liberal construction of the language used in order to carry out the expressed intention of the fundamental lawmakers and the Legislature but, rather, that the property which is claimed to be exempt must come clearly within the provisions granting such exemption. Doane College v. County of Saline, 173 Neb. 8, 112 N.W.2d 248.
The theory that the rule requiring strict construction of a tax exemption statute demands that the narrowest possible meaning should be given to words descriptive of the objects of it would establish too severe a standard. A liberal and not a harsh or strained construction is to be given to the terms “educational,” “religious,” and “charitable” in order that the true intent of the constitutional and statutory provisions may be realized. The judicial interpretation of such statute should always be reasonable. Young Men’s Christian Assn. v. Lancaster County, 106 Neb. 105, 182 N.W. 593, 34 A.L.R. 1060. The term “religious” has been held to require neither the profession of a sectarian creed, nor the formal dedication or occupation of property to promote the objects and purposes of a faith thus expressed. This court has said that education “may be particularly directed to either mental, moral or physical faculties, but in its broadest and best *35sense it embraces them all, and includes not merely the instructions received at school, college, or university, but the whole course of training — moral, intellectual, and physical.” Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite v. Board of County Commissioners, 122 Neb. 586, 241 N.W. 93, 81 A.L.R. 1166.
The word “charitable” has been held to mean something more than mere alms-giving or the relief of poverty and distress and it has been given a significance broad enough to include practical enterprises for the good of humanity operated at a moderate cost to those who receive the benefits. Young Men’s Christian Assn. v. Lancaster County, supra.
In Bethphage Com. Servs. v. County Board, 221 Neb. 886, 890, 381 N.W.2d 166, 169-70 (1986), we said:
In substance, the County contends that activities occurring at group homes are merely incidental to operation of the facilities as a dormitory or residence for disabled persons. We cannot agree with the County’s myopic view of the educational function found in the group homes.
Education should not be determined by some quantitative analysis of a formal curriculum but may be measurable in reference to training received as reflected in an individual’s enhanced behavior. In its most basic sense education is simply development, as fully as possible, of an individual’s given capacity, preferably for desirable qualities. Because they are special people, the residents of the group homes receive special training — education—for life beyond Bethphage. Thus, the activities at the group homes are educational within the meaning recognized by this court in Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite v. Board of County Commissioners, [122 Neb. 586, 241 N.W. 93 (1932)].
With respect to NCLE, the evidence shows that its use of the property is exclusively for educational purposes. It has no other purpose than to carry on a continuing legal educational program for the benefit of lawyers and members of the public. Its use of the property satisfies all of the requirements for *36exemption from taxation.
With respect to the Bar Association, its use of the property is to some extent educational, but that is not its dominant use of the property. Its use of the property is, however, in many respects charitable. In United Community Services v. The Omaha National Bank, 162 Neb. 786, 791, 77 N.W.2d 576, 582 (1956), we said:
[CJharity is . . . “a gift... for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, by bringing their hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering, or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting or maintaining public buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of government.”
(Emphasis supplied.)
Although many of the services of the Bar Association to the public are free, “charitable,” as used in this situation, means that the Bar Association performs services at no expense to the state which the state would otherwise be required to perform. Prime examples of its charitable activities in this respect are the examination and investigation of candidates for admission to the bar and the system for discipline and regulation of the practice of law within the state. All of these activities are performed by the association at no expense to the state and under the direction of this court. Without the assistance of the Bar Association in these matters, the state would have to provide the necessary personnel and facilities to perform the same functions.
While there may be some activities of the Bar Association that are not educational or charitable, they are but incidental in nature and do not constitute the primary or dominant use of the Law Center by the Bar Association.
In my opinion, the record establishes that the application of the Bar Foundation for exempt status of the Law Center for that part used by the Bar Foundation, the Bar Association, and NCLE should have been granted.
White and Grant, J J., join in this dissent.