Tucson Junior League of Tucson v. Emerine

594 P.2d 1020, 122 Ariz. 324, 1979 Ariz. App. LEXIS 459
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona
DecidedFebruary 7, 1979
Docket2 CA-CIV 3058
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 594 P.2d 1020 (Tucson Junior League of Tucson v. Emerine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tucson Junior League of Tucson v. Emerine, 594 P.2d 1020, 122 Ariz. 324, 1979 Ariz. App. LEXIS 459 (Ark. Ct. App. 1979).

Opinion

OPINION

RICHMOND, Chief Judge.

The Tucson Junior League appeals from a judgment which provides that real property *325 owned by the League is not tax exempt under A.R.S. § 42-271(3) or (4). We find no error and affirm.

Appellant claims exemption for its property as a building “used for education.” 1 Although there was testimony about training programs offered in the building, some of the rooms were used for non-educational meetings and all of the rooms were used during many months of the year for storing items for the League’s annual rummage sale. Laws exempting property from taxation are to be construed strictly; the presumption is against the exemption, and every ambiguity in the statute will be construed against it. Conrad v. County of Maricopa, 40 Ariz. 390, 12 P.2d 613 (1932). Applying that standard, we agree with the trial court that the nature and extent of the use of the property for educational purposes were insufficient to qualify for the exemption. Accord, Lois Grunow Memorial Clinic v. Oglesby, 42 Ariz. 98, 22 P.2d 1076 (1933).

Appellant also claims tax exempt status for the property as a charitable institution “for relief of the indigent or afflicted.” 2 None of the rooms in the building, however, is itself used for relief of the indigent. It is the use of the property itself and not the use of the proceeds or income which is decisive. Kunes v. Mesa Stake of Church of Jesus Christ, 17 Ariz.App. 451, 498 P.2d 525 (1972).

Affirmed.

HOWARD and HATHAWAY, JJ., concur.
1

. A.R.S. § 42-271(3).

2

. A.R.S. § 42-271(4).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Tucson Botanical Gardens, Inc. v. Pima County
189 P.3d 1096 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2008)
Volunteer Center of So. Az. v. Staples, Ford, Pima Co.
147 P.3d 1052 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 2006)
Tucson Community Development & Design Center, Inc. v. City of Tucson
641 P.2d 1298 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
594 P.2d 1020, 122 Ariz. 324, 1979 Ariz. App. LEXIS 459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucson-junior-league-of-tucson-v-emerine-arizctapp-1979.