Crim v. Phipps
Decision Date | 19 June 1992 |
Citation | 601 So.2d 474 |
Parties | Charles H. CRIM, as Tax Assessor of Jefferson County, and O.Z. Hall, as Tax Collector of Jefferson County v. Ann PHIPPS, as Executrix of the Estate of Roy E. Phipps, Deceased. 1901475. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Jeffrey M. Sewell and Charles S. Wagner, Asst. County Attys., Birmingham, for appellant.
Mark W. Bond and Bradford W. Botes of Bond & Botes, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee.
Robert E. Paden of Paden & Paden, Bessemer, for amicus curiae the City of Bessemer, Ala.
Jefferson County's tax assessor and tax collector appeal from a summary judgment declaring certain real property, leased to and used by the Alabama Department of Human Resources ("DHR"), exempt from ad valorem taxes. The summary judgment also ordered the Jefferson County tax collector to refund the ad valorem taxes that had been paid on the real property during the previous two years and prohibited future ad valorem tax assessment and collection on the property while it is used for charitable purposes. According to the trial court's judgment, the real property is exempt from ad valorem taxes because it is used exclusively for charitable purposes. On this appeal, the only question is whether DHR's use of the property qualifies for the tax exemptions found in Ala. Const. Art. IV, § 91; Ala. Const. Amend. No. 373(k); and Ala.Code 1975, § 40-9-1(1).
The only facts established in the record are that DHR had leased an office building and an adjoining parking area from Roy Phipps, 1 and that DHR uses this property for processing applications for, and distributing, welfare benefits. No evidence was presented regarding the amount of the rent or the rental value of the property.
Article IV, § 91, of the Alabama Constitution states: "The legislature shall not tax ... lots in incorporated cities and towns ... with the buildings thereon, when same are used exclusively for religious worship, for schools, or for purposes purely charitable." Id. (emphasis added). Amendment No. 373(k) states: "The following property shall be exempt from all ad valorem taxation: the real and personal property of the state, counties and municipalities and property devoted exclusively to religious, education or charitable purposes." Id. (emphasis added). This exemption from ad valorem taxes is repeated in Ala.Code 1975, § 40-9-1(1).
Phipps relies on State v. Kinder-Care Learning Centers, Inc., 418 So.2d 859 (Ala.1982); State v. Bridges, 246 Ala. 486, 21 So.2d 316 (1945); State v. Alabama Educational Foundation, 231 Ala. 11, 163 So. 527 (1935); State v. Church of the Advent, 208 Ala. 632, 95 So. 3 (1923); and Anniston City Land Co. v. State, 160 Ala. 253, 48 So. 659 (1909), for the argument that the use of the property rather than its ownership determines whether it is exempt from ad valorem taxation. We find all of these cases except Anniston City Land Co. distinguishable.
In Kinder-Care, supra, the Court held that Kinder-Care's use of its property for day care centers was not exclusively an educational use so as to qualify for tax exemption. Kinder-Care apparently owned the property, and the opinion makes no distinction between the use and the ownership of the property. Bridges involved a building of which the ground floor was used for commercial purposes and the second and third floors were leased to a business college. The owner applied for an "educational use" exemption, but the Court held that the building could not be divided into taxable and tax-exempt portions, at least where one owner owned the entire building. Alabama Education Foundation involved a statute by which the legislature had given a broader educational exemption than that provided by the Constitution, but this Court found no violation of the Constitution thereby. Church of the Advent involved property owned by a church and leased to an individual who used the property as a boarding house. The Court held that the property was not used for religious purposes and that it was immaterial how the church used the rent derived from the lease.
The above four cases cite Anniston City Land Co. for the proposition that use, not ownership, determines tax exemption. However, they all are decided on other grounds. Anniston City Land Co. is on point to the question at issue, however. The Anniston City Land Company owned two parcels of property that it leased to others for use as schools. The Court reversed a judgment that the property was taxable, holding:
"[I]t is manifest that section 91 of the Constitution makes use of the property, irrespective of ownership, the test of the right of exemption from taxation, and that, under the Constitution, in order to be exempt, it is only necessary that the property ... shall be used directly and exclusively for schools."
160 Ala. at 259-60, 48 So. at 661. 2
Tax exemptions are to be strictly construed against the exemption and in favor of the tax. Kinder-Care, supra, 418 So.2d at 861. The tax exemption is not available "unless the intention to exempt such person or property clearly appears in some statute or constitutional provision." Id., quoting Anniston City Land Co., supra, 160 Ala. at 256, 48 So. at 660.
Courts in other jurisdictions have held that a lease for profit by the owner to a charitable entity is not a "charitable use" of the property. In a case decided shortly before Anniston Land Co., the Supreme Court of Missouri interpreted a constitutional tax exemption for property "used exclusively for religious worship, for schools, or for purposes purely charitable," i.e., a provision virtually identical to § 91 of our constitution. The owner leased the property to the public schools, just as the Anniston City Land Company did with one of its parcels. The Supreme Court of Missouri came to the conclusion opposite that reached by this Court in Anniston City Land Co., however:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
EX PARTE EMERALD MOUNTAIN EXPRESSWAY BRIDGE
...taxation); § 40-9-1, Ala.Code 1975 (enumerating the property and persons that are exempt from ad valorem taxation); Crim v. Phipps, 601 So.2d 474, 476 (Ala.1992). It is well settled that "taxation is the rule and an exemption is the exception." AU Hotel, Ltd. v. Eagerton, 689 So.2d 859, 861......
-
Surtees v. Carlton Cove, Inc.
...So.2d 834, 839 (Ala.2003). "Tax exemptions are to be strictly construed against the exemption and in favor of the tax." Crim v. Phipps, 601 So.2d 474, 476 (Ala.1992). See also Emerald Mountain Expressway Bridge, 856 So.2d at The exemption at issue here is set forth in Ala.Code 1975, § 40-9-......
-
Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of State of Ala. v. Norred
...is important when the religious, educational, or charitable organization using the property does not also own the property. Crim v. Phipps, 601 So.2d 474 (Ala.1992). 2 When a property owner allows another party to use his property for religious, educational, or charitable purposes, and the ......
-
State v. TUSKEGEE UNIVERSITY
...Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of the State of Alabama v. Norred, 603 So.2d 996 (Ala.1992); Crim v. Phipps, 601 So.2d 474 (Ala.1992). However, the issue of this Court's appellate jurisdiction was not raised in those 3. "Administrative agency" is defined as: "A governm......