DR. WILLIAM HOWARD HAY FOUNDATION, INC., A CORPORATION ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE,
v.
CHARLES A. WILCOX, TAX ASSESSOR OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, J. B. STARKEY, TAX COLLECTOR OF PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND J. M. LEE, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Dr. William Howard Hay Foundation sought to prevent the Pinellas County Tax Collector from issuing tax certificates for certain lands, claiming exemption from taxation based on use for educational, literary, scientific, religious, or charitable purposes. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the denial of exemption, holding that the foundation failed to provide sufficient evidence that it actually owned the property or used it exclusively for exempt purposes.
The court held that the foundation failed to provide sufficient competent evidence to establish either that it owned the property or that the property was used exclusively for tax-exempt purposes. Exemption from taxation requires conclusive evidence that property is actually held and used exclusively for one of the statutorily protected purposes, and the foundation did not meet this burden.
“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.”
Establishes the strict requirement for tax exemption eligibility
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Dr. William Howard Hay Foundation, a Delaware corporation, sought to restrain the Tax Collector of Pinellas County from issuing tax certificates a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ad Valorem Tax Exemption cases and more on FLexlaw
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 non-payment 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.
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 law suit 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.
*706With the appeal herein appellants also filed a petition in mandamus seeking to make certain corrections to the record on appeal. The petition has been examined, but it does not supply the deficiency essential to show that the lands in question are being used for purposes that would exempt them from taxation. It is therefore denied.
Affirmed.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN, BUFORD, THOMAS, ADAMS and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lake Worth Towers, Inc. v. Gratton Gerstung, 262 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)…rmined as of that date. Overstreet v. TyTan, Inc., Fla.1950, 48 So. 2d 158. To obtain total exemption, the property must be held and used in a manner authorized by Section 192.06, F.S. Dr. William Howard Hay Foundation v. Wilcox, 1945, 156 Fla. 704, 24 So. 2d 237. On January 1, 1968 Petitioner did not qualify under Section 192.06(14) (a) as a tax exempt home for the aged since the building was not in use as a nonprofit home for the aged. We disagree, however, with the lower court’s conclusion that Petitione…
-
Dade Cnty. Taxing Authorities v. Cedars OF Lebanon Hosp. Corp., Inc., 355 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 1978)…s of that date. Overstreet v. Ty-Tan, Inc., Fla. 1950, 48 So. 2d 158. To obtain total exemption, the property must be held and used [emphasis original] in a manner authorized by Section 192.06, F.S. Dr. William Howard Hay Foundation v. Wilcox, 1945, 156 Fla. 704, 24 So. 2d 237. On January 1, 1968 Petitioner did not qualify under Section 192.06(14)(a) as a tax exempt home for the aged since the building was not in use as a nonprofit home for the aged. (Emphasis supplied) (Footnote omitted) 262 So. 2d at 3.…
-
Moffett v. Glover E. Ashby, 139 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1962)…s, Fla.1961, 134 So. 2d 785. . Note 2 supra. As to incidental use, see: Johnson v. Sparkman, 1947, 159 Fla. 276, 31 So. 2d 803, 172 A.L.R. 1067. . Miami Battlecreek v. Lummus, 140 Fla. 718, 192 So. 211; Dr. William Howard Hay Foundation v. Wilcox, 156 Fla. 704, 24 So. 2d 237. .Cases cited note 4 supra.…