"The design and purposes of the building on the land was to furnish housing to selected people at low cost. There is nothing to indicate that it was to be below the cost of the service furnished. . . . In fact no right to remain in occupancy other than at the will of the defendant was a declared purpose except as to a limited class of occupants. . . ." (111 N.W. 2d 725). In the case of Clarewood House, we are advised by the facts submitted that the main purpose and use is not the mere furnishing of relatively low-cost housing to selected people but that charity is the purpose, and the right to remain in occupancy is not at the will of the Board. The mere lack of a church sponsor does not prevent the Home from having a charitable exemption. Apparently the federal government is satisfied with its exclusive charitable purpose and use and saw fit to finance it one hundred per cent and give it an exemption from taxes on the ground that it was organized and operated as exclusively charitable. We find no substantial or material distinctions to be made on the facts herein related as to Clarewood House as compared to those related in our previous opinions. In Opinion C-357, supra, for example, involving Bayou Manor, sponsored by the Brazos Presbyterian Church, there was no more charitable benefit running to the public for its operation than is shown in the Clarewood case. In writing this opinion, we have attempted to set out such legal guidelines as exist on the question presented for the benefit of any other interested parties faced with a similar question. We hasten to point out, however, that we have assumed that no factual controversy exists between the taxing authority and the party seeking the exemption. In issuing official opinions, this office is not authorized to resolve disputed factual issues. Our opinions are based solely upon the application of legal principles to the facts submitted to us. If a taxing authority and a party seeking a tax exemption are not in agreement as to the evidential facts upon which a claim for exemption is based, the parties must resolve their dispute in a court of law that is authorized to resolve disputed fact issues. B.P.O.E. Lodge v. City of Houston, supra; Raymondville Memorial Hospital v. State, supra; Benevolent & Protective Order of Elks v. City of Houston, 44 S.W. 2d 488 (Tex. Civ. App. 1931, error ref.); City of Houston v. Scottish Rite Benevolent Ass'n., supra; 7 Baylor Law Rev. 498 and 11 Baylor Law Rev. 148. This is particularly true, as stated by the cited authorities, because the burden of clear proof is on the one claiming exemption; exemptions from taxation are never favored; and all doubts are resolved against the exemption and in favor of the taxing power. SUMMARY The Attorney General's office is not authorized to pass on fact questions. However, under the facts submitted, which we assume as true and uncontroversial, Clarewood House is deemed to be an institution of purely public charity which would be entitled to exemption from ad valorem taxes under Article VIII, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution. Yours very truly, (The following bills were introduced as the hearing was going to press.) 99TH CONGRESS S. 3444 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JUNE 2, 1966 Mr. CASE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred A BILL To require that medicine cabinets used in federally assisted hous- 9 10 (b) As used in this section (1) The term "federally assisted housing" means 2 (A) housing constructed, rehabilitated, or otherwise provided with assistance under the National Housing Act, the United States Housing Act of 1937, section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959, title V of the Housing Act of 1949, the Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961, section 7 (b) of the Small Business Act, and chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code; and (B) family housing constructed by the Department of Defense. (2) The term "appropriate Federal agency" means (A) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development with respect to housing constructed, rehabilitated, or otherwise provided under the National Housing Act, the United States Housing Act of 1937, section 101 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, or section 202 of the Housing Act of 1959; (B) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to housing constructed, rehabilitated, or otherwise provided under title V of the Housing Act of 1949, or the Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961; (C) the Administrator of the Small Business Administration with respect to housing constructed or repaired with assistance under section 7 (b) of the Small Business Act; and (D! 1 2 3 3 the Secretary of Defense with respect to family housing constructed by the Department of Defense. (e) The respective appropriate Federal agencies shall, in 4 prescribing standards under this Act, seek, through consulta 5 tion or otherwise, to achieve the greatest practicable uni6 formity in such standards. 89TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION S. 3458 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JUNE 6, 1966 Mr. ROBERTSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking and Currency A BILL To provide that expenditures made in connection with the proposed city hall and certain public facilities in the city of Hampton, Virginia, may be counted as local grants-in-aid for purposes of title I of the Housing Act of 1949. 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 That notwithstanding the extent to which (1) the proposed 4 city hall in the city of Hampton, Virginia, and (2) the 5 proposed development of public facilities by such city on a one hundred and ten acre tract fronting on Chesapeake Bay, 7 may benefit areas other than the urban renewal areas here8 inafter designated, expenditures incurred by the city of 9 Hampton in constructing such city hall and in developing 6 II 2 1 such facilities shall, if otherwise eligible, be allowed as local 2 grants-in-aid for any of the following urban renewal projects 3 in such city: Virginia R-30, Virginia R-34, and Virginia 4 R-41. |