Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

statute
appealappellant

Related Cases

Newsweek, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 522 U.S. 442, 118 S.Ct. 904, 139 L.Ed.2d 888, 66 USLW 3539, 66 USLW 3553, 26 Media L. Rep. 1383, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1272, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1748, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 329
View Case »
Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U.S. 794, 96 S.Ct. 2488, 49 L.Ed.2d 220
View Case »
Abbott Laboratories v. Franchise Tax Bd., 175 Cal.App.4th 1346, 96 Cal.Rptr.3d 864, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9316, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,837
View Case »
Fitzgerald v. Racing Ass’n of Central Iowa, 539 U.S. 103, 123 S.Ct. 2156, 156 L.Ed.2d 97, 71 USLW 4438, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4841, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6132, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 342
View Case »
General Motors Corp. v. District of Columbia, 380 U.S. 553, 85 S.Ct. 1156, 14 L.Ed.2d 68
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tusculum College v. State Bd. of Equalization, 600 S.W.2d 739

Facts

Tusculum College sought a property tax exemption for several buildings on its campus, including the president's residence and various faculty and maintenance staff residences. The Board of Equalization denied the exemption, stating that the properties were primarily used for residential purposes rather than educational purposes. The president's residence was partially used for college functions, but the other buildings were rented to faculty and maintenance workers, with rent collected from all but the president's residence.

The portions of appellant's property which are involved in this suit are as follows: 1. President's residence. 2. The “Old College Building”, containing four apartments occupied by faculty members. 3. The “Gray Cottage”, occupied by a faculty member. 4. The “Small Halfway House”, occupied by a faculty member. 5. Another house occupied by a faculty member. 6. “Old Justice House” occupied by a maintenance worker. 7. The “Home House” occupied by a maintenance worker. 8. The “Maintenance Apartments” occupied by two maintenance workers.

Issue

Whether the structures on Tusculum College's campus occupied as residences by its president, deans, faculty members, and maintenance personnel are entitled to exemption from property taxation.

The single issue presented by this appeal is whether or not, on the basis of the undisputed facts, the structures on the appellant's campus occupied as a residence by its president, certain selected deans and faculty members, and certain maintenance personnel, or any of them, are entitled to exemption from property taxation by virtue of T.C.A. s 67-513.

Rule

T.C.A. s 67-513(a) states that property owned by educational institutions is exempt from taxation only if it is occupied and used purely and exclusively for the institution's purposes.

There shall be exempt from property taxation, the real and personal property owned by any religious, charitable, scientific or educational institution which is occupied and used by such institution or its officers purely and exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of the purposes for which said institution was created or exists . . . .

Analysis

The court analyzed the use of the properties in question and determined that the majority were not used for educational purposes but rather for residential purposes. The Board found that only half of the president's residence was used for college functions, while the other properties were rented out, which disqualified them from tax exemption under the applicable statute.

However, this Court is satisfied that the Board and Chancellor reached a correct result in the present case.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the decision of the Board of Equalization, concluding that the properties were not entitled to tax exemption except for half of the president's residence.

The decree of the Chancellor is affirmed.

Who won?

The State Board of Equalization prevailed because the court upheld its determination that the properties were primarily used for residential purposes and not for educational purposes.

The Board of Equalization determined that fifty percent (1/2) of the President's residence was exempt because of its partial use for college meetings and entertainment and that the remaining fifty percent (1/2) of the President's residence and the remaining buildings in their entirety were taxable.

You must be