|
REDEVELOPMENT COM'N OF HIGH POINT v. Guilford County, 164 S.E.2d 476, 274... Page 6 of 6
<br />19
<br />"In the law of taxation, eminent domain, etc., this is a term of classification to distinguish
<br />the objects for which, according to settled usage, the government is to provide, from those
<br />which, by the like usage, are left to private interest, inclination, or liberality. * * * The term is
<br />synonymous with governmental purpose. * * * A public purpose or public business has for
<br />its objective the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, general welfare, security,
<br />prosperity, and contentment, of all the inhabitants or residents within a given political
<br />division,
<br />The facts and circumstances of each case determines whether there is such public purpose as to bring the state or
<br />municipal corporation within the claimed exemption. For example, the purposes for which the municipal corporation was
<br />created, whether it has departed from the protected area of immunity, or if the reason for its immunity has ceased to
<br />exist, should be considered.
<br />We observe, parenthetically, that the word "necessary" used by some of the authorities herein cited seems to be without
<br />significance in describing a public purpose in the context of this tax exemption.
<br />In determining whether or not property falls within a tax exemption provision, the primary or dominant use, and not an
<br />incidental or secondary use, will control. Iota Benefit Ass'n v. County of Douglas, 165 Neb. 330, 85 N.W.2d 726, 66
<br />A.L.R. 2d 898; 51 Am.Jur., Taxation § 539 (1944). An exemption of the entire property may be allowed notwithstanding
<br />an intermingled private use, when the latter use is only incidental. 51 Am.Jur., Taxation § 576 (1944).
<br />*482 The general rule is stated at Annot., 3 A.L.R., 1439, 1445 (1919) as follows: "(W)here the primary and principal use
<br />to which property is put is public, the mere fact that an income is incidentally derived from it does not affect its character
<br />as property devoted to public use."
<br />It would seem unreasonable and to the obvious detriment of the taxpayer that property primarily used for a public
<br />purpose and incidentally producing income should be reduced to nonincome - producing property in order to maintain its
<br />tax exempt status while the property is necessarily held by a municipality in order to carry out its public purpose.
<br />In applying the rules herein set forth it must be borne in mind that this case is before us on demurrers and that for the
<br />purpose of testing the sufficiency of the pleading the well- stated allegations of fact and relevant inferences of fact
<br />reasonably deducible therefrom are admitted to be true, and the pleading must be liberally construed so as to give the
<br />pleader the benefit of every reasonable intendment in his favor. Glover v. Brotherhood of Ry. etc., Employees, 250 N.C.
<br />35 (/ opinion/ 1220128 /glover -v- brotherhood -of- railway -s- clerks -etch, 108 S.E.2d 78 ( /opinion /1220128 /glover -v-
<br />brotherhood-of- railway -s- clerks- etc /).
<br />We hold that plaintiff alleged sufficient facts from which it might be reasonably inferred that all of the property held by
<br />appellant was acquired and held primarily for governmental and public purposes according to a definitely evolved plan to
<br />use the property for the public. The collection of rent while the property was being held for a public or governmental
<br />purpose was incidental and secondary to the dominant public use and did not remove it "from the city hall" to "the market
<br />place."
<br />When a plaintiff seeks the equitable relief of injunction, his pleadings should be full in alleging facts necessary to show
<br />the illegality or invalidity of the tax. McDonald v. Teague, 119 N.C. 604 (/ opinion /3915778 /mcdonald- v- teaguen, 26 S.E.
<br />158 (/ opinion /3915778 /mcdonald- v- teaguen. Here, although plaintiffs pleadings meet minimum requirements, it would be
<br />well advised to move to amend its pleadings to the end that it might more fully allege facts as to the acquisition and use
<br />of the property.
<br />The Court of Appeals erred in holding, as a matter of law, that the income - producing property held and acquired for
<br />redevelopment purposes was not exempt from taxation because it produced income. The demurrers should have been
<br />overruled.
<br />Modified and affirmed.
<br />https: / /www. courtlistener. com/ opinion / 1246924 /redevelopment- comn -of -high- point -v- guil... 5/18/2018
<br />
|