Barnes Hospital v. Collector of Revenue 646 S.W.2d 889 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983) Pudlowski, J. This enchantment by Barnes Hospital entails taxation of Queeny Tower, a 17-story constructing linked to, used and owned by Barnes Hospital for the tax-exempt functions of treating sufferers and offering them with care d providers.an Washington College Medical College, whose instructing amenities are positioned throughout the Barnes Hospital advanced and whose school members comprise the medical employees of the hospital, leases Queeny Tower from Barnes. The part-time school subleases workplaces in Queeny Tower from Washington College to be used of their personal follow in addition to to be used of their instructing, analysis and Barnes Hospital capabilities. . . .
The only Question Assignment raised is whether or not property owned by a tax exempt hospital and leased to the medical college to be used by its school could also be taxed the place its part-time school members, additionally engaged in restricted personal follow, keep their workplaces therein. . . . The primary prerequisite for exemption is that the property be used completely for charitable functions. Nowhere in its determination did the Missouri Supreme Courtroom outline the that means of the statutory phrases used completely or functions. Thus, the preliminary proviso of the qualification articulated first in Franciscan, the statutory phrase used completely, should be examined. The phrase might imply solely or solely in its narrowest sense. We don’t construe it in that sense. . . . . . . The statutory phrase used completely has reference to the first and inherent use as towards a mere secondary and incidental use. Our courts since Barnes have continued their reliance and acceptance of this definition. . . . The coverage underlying the statute is to encourage charitable organizations. The that means we connect to the language of the statute accords with the mandate in Barnes. Though it’s the common rule that constitutional provisions exempting property are to be strictly construed, such provisions, although not topic to extension by development or implication, are to be given an inexpensive, pure and sensible interpretation in mild of trendy circumstances with a view to effectuate the aim for which the exemption is granted. . . .
For the foregoing causes, the judgment of the trial court docket is reversed and the trigger remanded with instructions that the decree of August 24, 1978, stay in full pressure and impact and that appellants questioned property be faraway from the tax rolls of St. Louis Metropolis and the Metropolis Collector be prohibited from levying tax or compelling fee thereon. All concur. Dialogue Questions 1. How can the Higher Anchorage (Alaska) and Barnes Hospital (Missouri) courts take two almost an identical tax legal guidelines, apply them to conditions with just about an identical info, and arrive at reverse conclusions? Are their choices honest? Chapter 12: Taxation of Healthcare Establishments 459 2. Which of the 2 interpretations do you discover extra persuasive? three.
Would Barnes Hospital have been determined in a different way if the property in Question Assignment had been owned by a for-profit firm however leased to the hospital for a similar functions? four. What if a parking storage with day by day or hourly charges and utilized by staff, sufferers, households, and guests had been positioned on a parcel of land owned by and adjoining to the hospital property? Would that use be exempt in Alaska or Missouri? Wouldn’t it matter who accrued the income from the parking storage or what charges had been charged? Does your reply change if the storage may be utilized by patrons of native companies that aren’t associated to the hospital? three sources per Question Assignment.

Published by

Write

View all posts