California College of Mortuary Science v. County of Los Angeles
Before: Cobey
Opinion
COBEY, J.
The question presented by this appeal from a judgment for the taxpayer, a nonprofit corporation, for the refund of property taxes paid by it to the county and city for the tax years 1967, 1968 and 1969 on its premises, where it instructs its students in mortuary science, is whether such an institution is exempt from property taxation under Revenue and Taxation Code section 214. The trial court determined that it was. We disagree and reverse.
The parties are agreed that the taxpayer meets all of the specific requirements of section 214 applicable to it. Furthermore the taxpayer is a duly accredited junior college, but the only instruction given on its campus consists of a one-year comprehensive program of courses in embalming and the work of funeral directors. Those of its students seeking an A.A. must obtain an additional year of general instruction at some other accredited college. It is, however, one of the two schools in the state (both private) and the only one in southern California providing this type of vocational training for state licensure. Over 90 percent of its income and operating capital come from student tuitions; the remainder is contributed by the funeral service industry. Its campus, including its library facilities, are used free of charge by both the industry and industry-related governmental agencies.
[704]
The taxpayer, being at most only a two-year college, concededly does not qualify for the college exemption from property taxation provided in article XIII, section la of our Constitution and defined in Revenue and Taxation Code section 203. Being, however, of “collegiate grade,” it also does not qualify for the express exemption from such taxation permitted by article XIII, section lc of our Constitution and accorded by the aforementioned section 214 to schools of “less than collegiate grade.”
1
The question remains, however, whether the taxpayer qualifies implicitly for the “welfare exemption” granted by section 214 to certain property used exclusively for charitable purposes. We note initially that, by express provision, section 214 “shall not be construed to enlarge the college exemption.” In
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)