Opinion letter to the Honorable Robert A. Bonney

OPINION No . 27~ (1962 ) 20 (1963) answered by letter . L --;:._-, 01 January 21. 1963 Honorable Hobert A. Bonney Prosecuting Attorney Wayne County Box 248 Piedmont, Ja.eeour1 Dear Mr. Bonneyl We haYe ,.our requeet tor an opinion ot tllia office •• to vhether a tract ot land owned by the Piedmont Chaaber ot Co•eree, a beneYOl~t aa.oc1at1on torlled pur- suant to ChQter JS2. I8Ji) 1959. 11 ex•pt from taxation under the pronaiona of Section 1.)7.100, ISMo 1959· You aet out the c1rcuutancea 1nwlTed. in the acquiait1on of thia real e.tate aa tollovel "The Chamber acquired by pu.rchaae a tract ot land ot approximatel7 10 acre a 1n Wayne CountT. T1 t1e vaa taken 1n the name ot the Chamber. There are no Deede or Trust or other l1ena on the premi1e1. It 11 the de- eire and hope ot the Chamber eventually to either lea•• or eell the premiaee to a manufacturing enterpriae vhicb would erect a factory on the premises ao that the -pl.oyaent opportunitea in the area may be increaaed. The rent al which mi&ht be recei Ted (or the aalea proceeda lf the preaiau were ao1d) would be used tor the purpoaea aet out 1n paragraph tour ot the Articlea. The Chamber haa been unable to eJ.ther aell or leaae the pr.Uaea to date. The property has not been uaed in anr manner and 1t hae not ~enerated an7 ncome ao tar.• Section 1)7 .100 ( 5), iSMo 1959 t the onlr portion of that aection releTan1i here, ie •• .roll011a a Honorable Hobert A. Bonney "(5) All property, real and per- sonal actually and regularly used exclusively for religious worship, for schools and coLlegea! or for purposes purely charitab e and not held for private or corporate proi'i t, except that the exemption herein granted does not include re•l prop- erty not actually used or occupied for the purpose of the organisation but held or used as investment even though the income or renta1s re- ceived therefrom is used wholly for religious, educaeional or charitable purposes. " It can be seen that it is the Y.B of property that is determinative of ita tax exempt status. l-breover, that use must be regular and exclusive. St. Louis Gospel Center v. Prose. Ko., 280 s. w. 2d S27J State ex rel. Koeln v . St. Louis !MCA, 259 f&> . 23), 16S S. w. 589. In t he situation which you present, it is apparent that the property in question 1 s not b&ing used for religious, .aucational or charitable purposes. That it is not presently being uaed for some other purpoae is of no consequence; the atatute requires that prop- erty to be exempted must be "actually and regularly used" tor one or mor• ot the stated purposes. Even if the question vere t.o be considered from the point of view of the intended uee of the property, our conclusion remains unch anged. From t he facta aub- mitted it is clear that the owners are hope.f'ul o·t in- ducing private parties to use t he tract for a pro£1 t .. making enterprise, which , of course, is not an exempt use. Although any proceeds received by the Chanber of Commerce from t he sale or lease of the property are to be used for educational or charitable purpoa•s, the exception contained i n the above-qaoted statute apecifi~~!I $lim1nates this fact as a consideration in dete ng the tax exempt status of property. - 2- Honorable Robert A. Bonney For the reasona stated, 1 t 1e our opinion that the propel1iy of which you inquire i.e not exem.pt from taxa• t1on under Section 137.100. l1SMo 1959. JJM lc Very truly yours, fitof.Us F. ilGLitOH Attorney General