Dr. William Howard Hay Foundation Inc. v. Wilcox

• Decision Date: 18 December 1945
• Citation: 156 Fla. 704,24 So.2d 237
• Parties: DR. WILLIAM HOWARD HAY FOUNDATION, Inc., v. WILCOX et al.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

24 So.2d 237

156 Fla. 704

DR. WILLIAM HOWARD HAY FOUNDATION, Inc., v. WILCOX et al.

Florida Supreme Court

December 18, 1945

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 1946.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pinellas County; T. Frank Hobson judge.

R. Wilson Evans, for appellant-petitioner.

Fisher & Sauls, of Saint Petersburg, for appellee-respondent Charles A. Wilcox, Tax Assessor of Pinellas County Fla.

John C Blocker, of Saint Petersburg, for appellee-respondent J. M Lee, Comptroller.

Carey & Harrison, of Saint Petersburg, for appellee-respondent J. B. Starkey.

TERRELL, Justice.

Appellants as complainants sought to restrain the Tax Collector of Pinellas County from issuing tax certificates against certain lands more particularly described in the bill of complaint, for nonpayment of State and county taxes, the contention being that said lands were being used for educational, literary, scientific, religious or charitable purposes and were exempt from taxation, as contemplated by Section one, Article nine and Section 16, Article 16 of the Constitution, Section 192.06(3), Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A.

To claim the exemption from taxation as thus provided the property must be actually held and used exclusively for one or more of the purposes stated in the Constitution. Whether or not it is so owned, occupied and used is a question of fact that must be established by competent proof, if challenged. In determining the status of property of this kind, taxing officers should exercise a reasonable discretion and not put the owner to the expense of a lawsuit if the property is in good faith being used for one or more of the purposes that entitle it to exemption.

The evidence must conclusively show that the property is within the exemption provided. The evidence in this case has been examined and is found insufficient to meet this test. In fact, taken as a whole, it is not shown by competent evidence that appellants are the owners of the property or that it is used for other than commercial purposes. By such a showing, there was no other judgment the chancellor could have entered. Exemption of property from taxation is not a favor bestowed for the asking. It is reward offered to the owner who used his property in such a way that material benefits flow to the public. The benefits may be tangible or intangible and may or may not be susceptible of evaluation by the dollar symbol.

With the appeal herein appellants...