GERAW,.C. MANN'. ,AUSTXNSI. -cl
. .,
Honorable~Ti 'M./Trimble<.
First Assistant State Superintendent
Austin, Texab
.
Dear Sir: O&non No..C+43
Whether property :of Sarah
B. Mi,lroyHospital is exempt
from taxation.
receipt'.ofyour ietter'.ofJuly .18, 199’. &wherein you
We.are'-.in,
request sour'opin$on'as$o:whether the Sarah ~B.Niiroy.Hospital.
is hxempti 'from thepayment of texes to.the Brenham&dependent
Sdhool D.i&.l?ict'npon its properties; YUnder.the.facts.which you
submi,tto.usj:'theSarah D. PiilroyHospital .Is:a'Texas~.cor*poration
with capit&.~stock having a'p!ar.value' a'nd'.~rganize,d.f?.r'
private
p*of$&. ’ .,
Art&le Fi,Section 2 of the ,StateConstitution provides'&& "the
Legislature~may by.general laws exempt from taxation..........
institutions'-of'urely public charity; and all laws exempting
property from taxation other than the above mentioned shall be
null :and.void.".
Section 7 of Article 7150, Revised Civil Statutes,.was enacted
in pursuance~to the above constitutional provision, and the first
sentence-thereof reads as .follows:
"Public charities. All buildings belonging to institutions
of purely public charity, together with:the,:l,ands!belonging
to and occupied by such institutions not leased or otherwise
used with a view to profit, unless such rents and-profits and
all moneys and credits are appropriated by such institutions
solely to sustain such institutions and for the benefit of
the sick and disabled members and their familiesand the..:'
burial of the same, or for th.emaintenance of persons when
unable to provide for themselves, whether such persons are
members of such institutions or not....."
The fact that the institution in question does some charitable
work is not sufficient to bring it within the exemption. Our
courts have held that the work *purely" as used in Article 6,
Section 2, of the Constitution, is intended to modify the word
"charity" and not the word "public"~. Therefore, for an institu-
Hon. T. M. Trimble, Page 2 o-u.43
tion to be one of "purely public charity," it must be:~oneyhose T
property is used wholly and exclusively for charitableplrposes.
B.P.O.E. Lodge No. 151 vs. City of Houston, 44 S.W. (2d) 488;
City of Houston vs. Scottish Rite Benevolent Association, 230
S.d. 978. As stated in Santa Rosa Infirmary vs. City of San
Antonio, 259 S.b+i.
926, by the Commission of Appeals, Section 2
of Article 8 of the Constituion expresslymakes null and void
all exemptions attempted thereunder by the Legislature unless
authorized by the constitutional provision ,itself..:It.is not.
made mandatory that the Legislature shall extend the exemption
but the constitutional provision is only an authorization to do
so. As shown in the aoove quotation, the statute does not attempt
to extend the exemption to buildings and land belonging to an
institution where ~.thesame is used with a view to profit. This
precludes fromthe exemption the property of a corporation where
distributable earnings in the shape of dividends upon the,stock
of the corporation are to accr.ue. See Santa Rosa ,I.nf.irmaryvs.
City of San Antonio,:supra. Exemptions from taxation are uot
favored and.in order for a.perso.n'toreceive,'theoenefit.sof
such exemption~the burden,is upon him.to show that~his.property
clearly cometswith,inthe same. B;:.Pi 'O?'E.Lodge ,No..l51 vs.
City ofHouston, supra.;.Santa Rosa Infirmary vs. City of San
Antonio; 'supra. Under the facts submitted to us, the property
of the Sarah B. Milroy Hospital is not exempt from the payment of
the school taxes.
Yo& ye+y truly
ATTORNEY GENBRAL OF-TEXAS
BY
GlennR. Lewis
Assistant
GRL:N
APPROVEU &JL:31,~1939;
W..F.MOORE‘
FIRST ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL-