Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-1254 Page: 2 of 4
4 p.View a full description of this text.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Honorable Wayne Burns, Page 2
"1. . .. All public colleges, public
academies,. . . and all such buildings
used exclusively and owned by persons or
associations of persons for school pur-
poses;. . . . Emphasis added.7
The Supreme Court of Texas, in Smith v. Feather% 149 Tex.
402, 234 S.W.2d 418, refused the contention by the respondent
that only schools which were "publicly" owned are exempt, and
stated at page 421:
". .. If a building is privately owned
and privately used it is not a public
building. We decline to give the word
'such' that meaning. It does not refer
back to public buildings, but to college
and academy buildings . . The statute
first exempts public college and academy
buildings, and that is followed by an
exemption of college and academy buildings
privately owned." emphasis added.
Smith v. Feathers, supra, Pertained to a privately owned
school of design. The building- was owned by Mr. & Mrs. H. 0.
Feathers, and prior to 1948 was operated by the husband and wife
alone. In 1948 an adult daughter of the Feathers became an equal
partner with her parents in the operation of the school. The
partnership made an annual partnership income tax return, and
the profits were divided equally among the three partners. The
daughter did not own any interest in the building. The Court
stated at page 421:
"It is obvious that from the date of
the formation of that partnership the
owners of this building /Kr. & Mrs. H. O.
Feathers were not the exclusive operators
of the school. Had Mr. & Mrs. Feathers
rented the building to others who used it
exclusively for school purposes, it would
not be exempt. . . . It is equally clear
that if any part of the building was used
for the purpose of carrying on a business
or profession by one not the owner, that
would destroy the exemption. .. . the fact
that one of the three persons who use it
as a school owns no interest in Lthe build-
in destroys the exemption." JEphasis
added 7Opinion No. WW-1254
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
Texas. Attorney-General's Office. Texas Attorney General Opinion: WW-1254, text, February 7, 1962; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth267867/m1/2/: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.