Daily Development for
Friday, November 22, 1995

by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law

TAXATION; EXEMPT PROPERTY; PUBLIC PURPOSES: When a facility is rented to private parties and "preferred" private memberships are sold, such facility is not entitled to a public facility exemption from state ad valorem taxation. City of Fayetteville v. Phillips, 899 S.W.2d 57 (Ark. 1995).

The Arkansas Constitution provided for an exemption for "public property used exclusively for public purposes." Ark. Const. art 16, 5(b). While the facility in question, an arts center, may have been used largely for public purposes, it was not used exclusively for public purposes; moreover, the indicia of private use were too numerous for the facility to qualify for an "incidental use" exception to the general rule. The court also frowned upon the idea of the facility receiving a tax advantage over its area competitors for entertainment dollars. Query: Does the benefit derived from taxing quasi-public facilities outweigh the cost of potentially discouraging future privately-sponsored, community-benefitting?

DIRT readers: How would this case have been resolved in your state? The activities at the art center in this case are quite common. Are state constitutions in other states more generous as to what qualifies for tax exempt treatment?

Items in the Daily Development section generally are extracted from the Quarterly Report on Developments in Real Estate Law, published by the ABA Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law. Subscriptions to the Quarterly Report are available to Section members only. The cost is nominal. For the last five years, these Reports annually have been collated, updated, indexed and bound into the Annual Survey of Developments in Real Estate Law, volumes 1-5, published by the ABA Press. The Annual Survey volumes are available for sale to the public. Contact Shawn Kaminsky at the ABA. (312) 988 5260.

Items reported here and in the ABA publications are for general information purposes only and should not be relied upon in the course of representation or in the forming of decisions in legal matters. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.