Lois Grunow Memorial Clinic v. Ed Oglesby

• Decision Date: 09 June 1933
• Docket Number: Civil 3293
• Citation: 22 P.2d 1076,42 Ariz. 98
• Parties: LOIS GRUNOW MEMORIAL CLINIC, a Corporation Appellant, v. ED OGLESBY, Assessor of Maricopa County, Arizona, et al., Appellees
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

22 P.2d 1076

42 Ariz. 98

LOIS GRUNOW MEMORIAL CLINIC, a Corporation Appellant, v. ED OGLESBY, Assessor of Maricopa County, Arizona, et al., Appellees

Civil No. 3293

Supreme Court of Arizona

June 9, 1933

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. Fred W. Fickett, Judge. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. H S. McCluskey, for Appellant.

Mr Renz L. Jennings, Mr. M. L. Ollerton, Mr. Dudley W. Windes and Mr. Charles L. Strouss, for Appellee Maricopa County.

Mr. L C. McNabb, Mr. Wm. C. Eliot, Mr. Charles A. Carson, Jr., and Mr. James E. Nelson, for Appellee City of Phoenix.

OPINION

RODGERS, Superior Judge.

This is a suit instituted by Lois Grunow Memorial Clinic, a corporation, against the tax officials of the state of Arizona, the county of Maricopa, and the city of Phoenix, a municipal corporation, the ultimate object and purpose of which is to prevent by judicial interposition and mandate the assessment and collection of state, county and municipal taxes, levied and assessed against the real and personal property of the appellant, located in the city of Phoenix Maricopa county, Arizona, and more particularly described as lots 16, 17 and 18, block 6, Hurley Heights subdivision, an addition to the city of Phoenix, and the building erected thereon, and the personal property and equipment therein contained.

There is no substantial conflict as to the material facts presented for consideration, the actual controversy being predicated upon the proper legal deductions to be drawn from the facts in the premises.

The appellant presents two propositions of law in support of its contentions that its property, both real and personal, should be exempted from taxation. The two propositions so presented are summarized by appellant in the form of interrogatories, and are stated as follows:

"Is the use to which appellant's property is devoted of such character as to exempt it from taxation under the constitution and laws of the State of Arizona?

"Is section 611 of the Revised Code of Arizona of 1928 unconstitutional?"

We will consider these propositions in the order presented.

The answer to the first proposition must be determined by reference to, and the interpretation of, certain constitutional provisions and statutory enactments in so far as they are pertinent to the questions involved.

The pertinent part of section 2 of article 9 of the Constitution of Arizona reads as follows:

"Property of educational, charitable and religious associations or institutions not used or held for profit may be exempt from taxation by law. . . . All property in the State not exempt under the laws of the United States or under this constitution, or exempt by law under the provisions of this section shall be subject to taxation to be ascertained as provided by law."

Section 611, article 3, chapter 14, of the Revised Code of Arizona 1928, reads as follows:

"Scientific Research Corporations; When Tax Exempt. Corporations may be formed for research, investigation and experimentation in agriculture, horticulture, biology, botany, arboriculture and other scientific subjects. When any such corporation shall be organized not for profit and shall have no capital stock, all property of such corporation, used for its purposes or in connection with its work, including all property held by or for such corporation for the carrying on of the work thereof, shall be exempt from taxation so long as the same shall be used for such purposes only, and not used or held for profit."

Section 3066, chapter 75, article 2, of the Revised Code of Arizona 1928, reads in part as follows:

". . . All property shall be subject to taxation, except: . . .

"2. Public libraries, colleges, school houses, and other buildings used for education, with their furniture, libraries, and equipments, and the lands thereto appurtenant and used therewith, so long, as the same shall be used for the purpose of education and not used or held for profit, but when such property is private property, from which a rent or valuable consideration is received for its use, it shall be taxed as other property." (Italics ours.)

"3. Hospitals, asylums, poor houses, and other charitable institutions for the relief of the indigent or afflicted, and the lands thereto appurtenant, with their fixtures and equipments, not used or held for profit. . . ." (Italics ours.)

Appellant contends that it is exempt from taxation as a scientific research institution under section 611, supra; that it is also entitled to tax exemption as an educational institution under subdivision 2 of section 3066, supra; and, further, that it is likewise exempt from taxation as a charitable institution for the relief of the indigent and the afflicted under the provisions of subdivision 3 of said section 3066.

In considering the proper legal interpretation and application of laws exempting property from taxation, we are necessarily guided by the well-established principle that such laws are to be strictly construed and that the presumption is against tax exemptions. Conrad v. Maricopa County, 40 Ariz. 390, 12 Pac.(2d) 613.

The constitutional provision here invoked merely permits the exercise of a legislative prerogative in regard to exempting property from taxation. It provides that:

"Property of educational, charitable and religious associations or institutions not used or held for profit may be exempt from taxation by law." (Italics ours.)

The ultimate expression by legislative enactment of the power thus given by the provisions of the Constitution, supra, is contained in section 611 and subdivisions 2 and 3 of section 3066, supra.

We are therefore called upon to determine whether or not the facts in this case bring the appellant within the statutory exemptions as...