Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
REDEVELOPMENT COM'N OF HIGH POINT v. Guilford County, 164 S.E.2d 476, 274... Page 2 of 6 <br />15 <br />Author: Joseph Branch ( /person /5273 /joseph- branch /) <br />164 S.E.2d 476 (1968) <br />274 N.C. 585 <br />REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF HIGH <br />POINT <br />V. <br />GUILFORD COUNTY and City of High Point. <br />No. 687. <br />Supreme Court of North Carolina. <br />December 11, 1968. <br />*478 Haworth, Riggs, Kuhn & Haworth, High Point, for plaintiff. <br />David I. Smith, Greensboro, for defendant Guilford County. <br />BRANCH, Justice. <br />The question presented to this Court for decision is: Did the Court of Appeals err in holding as a matter of law that real <br />property acquired and held for redevelopment pursuant to the North Carolina Urban Redevelopment law is not exempt <br />from taxation if it produces income? <br />Appellant claims this exemption from taxation under provisions of Article V, Section 5 of the North Carolina Constitution, <br />which in pertinent part provides: "Property belonging to the State or to municipal corporations, shall be exempt from <br />taxation." This provisions of the Constitution is self- executing. Piedmont Memorial Hospital v. Guilford County, 218 N.C. <br />673 (/ opinion/ 3928421 /hospital -v- guilford- countyn, 12 S.E.2d 265 (/ opinion /3928421 /hospital -v- guilford- countyo. <br />The Court of Appeals correctly held that appellant is a municipal corporation for the purpose of tax exemption. <br />Redevelopment Commission v. Security Nat. Bank, 252 N.C. 595 (/ opinion/ 1371458 /redevelopment - comn -v- security- <br />national- banks, 114 S.E.2d 688 (/ opinion/ 1371458 /redevelopment - comn -v- security - national - banks; Mallard v. Eastern <br />Carolina Regional Housing Authority, 221 N.C. 334 (/ opinion/ 3923307 /mallard -v- housing- authorityo, 20 S.E.2d 281 <br />(/ opinion/ 3923307 /mallard -v- housing- authorityo; Wells v. Housing Authority, 213 N.C. 744 ( /opinion /3930106 /wells -v- <br />housing- authorityo, 197 S.E. 693 (/ opinion/ 3930106 /wells -v- housing- authorityo. We note in this connection that appellee <br />concedes, and properly so, that appellant was created and exists for a public purpose. <br />Appellee maintains that in this case injunction is an improper procedure for determining whether plaintiff is exempt from <br />the tax. <br />G.S. § 105 -281 provides: "All property, real and personal, within the jurisdiction of the State, not especially exempted, <br />shall be subject to taxation." <br />Ordinarily, the rule that the sovereign may not be denied or delayed in the enforcement of its right to collect revenues <br />applies to municipalities and every subdivision of state government, and when a tax is levied against a taxpayer he must <br />pay same under protest and sue for recovery after he has exhausted all existing administrative remedies. Bragg <br />Development *479 Co. v. Braxton, 239 N.C. 427 (/ opinion/ 1283847 /bragg- development- co- v- braxtonn, 79 S.E.2d 918 <br />(/ opinion /1283847/bragg- d eve lopment- co- v- braxtono. <br />G.S. § 105 -406 reads as follows: <br />https: / /www.coul tlistener.com/ opinion /1246924 /redevelopment- comn -of -high- point -v- guil... 5/18/2018 <br />