Tucson Junior League of Tucson v. Emerine
Cited by
- Tucson Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Pima County 189 P.3d 1096 Ariz. Ct. App. 2008
- Volunteer Center of So. Az. v. Staples, Ford, Pima Co. 147 P.3d 1052 Ariz. Ct. App. 2006
- Tucson Community Development & Design Center, Inc. v. City of Tucson 641 P.2d 1298 Ariz. Ct. App. 1981
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Lois Grunow Memorial Clinic v. Oglesby 22 P.2d 1076
- Conrad v. County of Maricopa 12 P.2d 613
- Kunes v. Mesa Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 498 P.2d 525
Opinion text
OPINION RICHMOND, Chief Judge. The Tucson Junior League appeals from a judgment which provides that real property *325 owned by the League is not tax exempt under A.R.S. § 42-271(3) or (4). We find no error and affirm. Appellant claims exemption for its property as a building “used for education.” 1 Although there was testimony about training programs offered in the building, some of the rooms were used for non-educational meetings and all of the rooms were used during many months of the year for storing items for the League’s annual rummage sale. Laws exempting property from taxation are to be construed strictly; the presumption is against the exemption, and every ambiguity in the statute will be construed against it. Conrad v. County of Maricopa, 40 Ariz. 390 , 12 P.2d 613 (1932). Applying that standard, we agree with the trial court that the nature and extent of the use of the property for educational purposes were insufficient to qualify for the exemption. Accord, Lois Grunow Memorial Clinic v. Oglesby, 42 Ariz. 98 , 22 P.2d 1076 (1933). Appellant also claims tax exempt status for the property as a charitable institution “for relief of the indigent or afflicted.” 2 None of the rooms in the building, however, is itself used for relief of the indigent. It is the use of the property itself and not the use of the proceeds or income which is decisive. Kunes v. Mesa Stake of Church of Jesus Christ, 17 Ariz.App. 451 , 498 P.2d 525 (1972). Affirmed. HOWARD and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur. 1 . A.R.S. § 42-271(3). 2 . A.R.S. § 42-271(4).