84 C.J.S. Taxation § 289
Corpus Juris Secundum
Taxation
Francis C. Amendola, J.D., Elizabeth M. Bosek, J.D., John Bourdeau, J.D., Paul Coltoff, J.D., Nicole Fox, J.D., Heidi J. Henle, J.D., John Kimpflen, J.D., Anne Knickerbocker, J.D., Sonja Larsen, J.D., Stephen Lease, J.D., Lucas Martin, J.D., Daniel O'Brien, J.D., Kevin Schroder, J.D., Eric C. Surette, J.D.
IV. Exemptions
C. Particular Exemptions
1. Private Property
§ 289. Homesteads
Constitutional and statutory provisions for exemption of homesteads from taxation are strictly construed.
Constitutional and statutory provisions frequently exempt homesteads from taxation in whole or in part,[FN1] but a constitutional amendment exempting homesteads from taxation cannot affect or impair a taxing power which has been pledged as security for the payment of bonds which are outstanding at the time the amendment is adopted.[FN2] Constitutional and statutory provisions for exemption of homesteads from taxation are strictly construed,[FN3] and persons claiming such exemption must show that they are entitled thereto,[FN4] but this rule does not require the adoption of a strained construction, or one so narrow and restricted as to defeat the apparent legislative purpose.[FN5] Such a provision should be construed as a whole,[FN6] and the court is bound by a legislative definition of the terms used in the statute.[FN7] A constitutional provision exempting homesteads from taxation for all state purposes does not exempt them from local taxes,[FN8] and does not authorize other taxing authorities to exempt homesteads from taxes for other than state purposes.[FN9] A statute exempting homesteads from taxation and authorizing local governing bodies to grant a similar exemption does not exempt from local taxes unless and until the local governing body acts.[FN10]
A homestead within a provision for exemption from seizure for debts is not necessarily the same as a homestead for purposes of tax exemption,[FN11] and constitutional limitations on homesteads with respect to the claims of creditors are inapplicable to provisions exempting homesteads from taxation.[FN12] A homestead exemption may only be available in favor of the owner,[FN13] and not in favor of a lessee.[FN14] In order to be within the exemption, the homestead must be a permanent, as distinguished from a temporary, place of abode,[FN15] but a requirement of "actual occupancy" by the owner does not require that he or she occupy the property in person most of the year, but only that there be such occupancy as is not inconsistent with ownership and maintenance of the dwelling as a homestead.[FN16] A void deed will not deprive the grantors of the right to an exemption, even though the full purchase price has been paid.[FN17] Under a statute providing that the tax on real property will be collected only on its value in excess of a stated amount in case the taxpayer occupies such real property as his or her home only, and further providing that the interest of every person in any property will be separately assessed, a tenant owning real estate in common with others, all of whom occupy it as their home, is entitled to a deduction of the full amount of the exemption from the assessed value of his or her undivided interest.[FN18]
[FN1] La.—Wooden v. Louisiana Tax Com'n, 650 So. 2d 1157 (La. 1995).
Effect of subsequent legislation as to taxation
Okla.—Forston v. Heisler, 1959 OK 122, 341 P.2d 252 (Okla. 1959).
Single exemption as to realty occupied by widow and minor children
Mass.—Sylvester v. Assessors of Braintree, 344 Mass. 263, 182 N.E.2d 120 (1962).
Multiple dwelling
Under constitutional provision providing for the exemption of homesteads from taxation and declaring that no such exemption of more than $5,000 shall be allowed to any one person or any one "dwelling house," by use of quoted words the whole structure of a multiple dwelling house, rather than any separate unit thereof, is meant and therefore, each owner of a separate unit is entitled to claim only his proportionate part of the $5,000 tax exemption, based on his proportionate part of the assessed valuation of the entire structure.
Fla.—Gautier v. State ex rel. Safra, 127 So. 2d 683 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1961).
[FN2] U.S.—Groves v. Board of Public Instruction of Manatee County, 109 F.2d 522 (C.C.A. 5th Cir. 1940).
[FN3] Iowa—Johnson v. Board of Sup'rs of Jefferson County, 237 Iowa 1103, 24 N.W.2d 449 (1946).
[FN4] Iowa—Johnson v. Board of Sup'rs of Jefferson County, 237 Iowa 1103, 24 N.W.2d 449 (1946).
[FN5] Iowa—Johnson v. Board of Sup'rs of Jefferson County, 237 Iowa 1103, 24 N.W.2d 449 (1946).
Married woman's separate property included
Fla.—Judd v. Schooley, 158 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 1963).
[FN6] Iowa—Eysink v. Board of Sup'rs of Jasper County, 229 Iowa 1240, 296 N.W. 376 (1941).
[FN7] Iowa—Eysink v. Board of Sup'rs of Jasper County, 229 Iowa 1240, 296 N.W. 376 (1941).
[FN8] Cal.—Morrison v. Barham, 184 Cal. App. 2d 267, 7 Cal. Rptr. 442 (2d Dist. 1960).
[FN9] Tex.—City of Wichita Falls v. Cooper, 170 S.W.2d 777 (Tex. Civ. App. Fort Worth 1943), writ refused, (June 16, 1943).
[FN10] Mich.—Remus v. City of Grand Rapids, 274 Mich. 577, 265 N.W. 755 (1936).
[FN11] U.S.—Doing v. Riley, 176 F.2d 449 (5th Cir. 1949).
[FN12] S.D.—State ex rel. Bottum v. Knudtson, 65 S.D. 547, 276 N.W. 150 (1937).
[FN13] Fla.—Gautier v. Lapof, 91 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1956).
Limited to record interest
Okla.—Forston v. Heisler, 1961 OK 198, 363 P.2d 949 (Okla. 1961).
[FN14] La.—Schulingkamp v. Heaton, 455 So. 2d 1181 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984), writ denied, 460 So. 2d 1045 (La. 1984).
Member-stockholder of cooperative
Ga.—Brandywine Townhouses, Inc. v. Joint City-County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 231 Ga. 585, 203 S.E.2d 222 (1974).
Lessee's exemption
(1) Extent of exemption.
Hawaii—In re Johnson's Taxes, 44 Haw. 519, 356 P.2d 1028 (1960).
(2) Same benefits available to sublessee.
Hawaii—In re Johnson's Taxes, 44 Haw. 519, 356 P.2d 1028 (1960).
[FN15] Hawaii—In re White, 33 Haw. 214, 1934 WL 2695 (1934).
[FN16] Fla.—Poppell v. Padrick, 117 So. 2d 435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1959).
Renting not occupying
Minn.—State v. Wolfe, 365 N.W.2d 345 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
[FN17] Fla.—Simpson v. Hirshberg, 159 Fla. 25, 30 So. 2d 912 (1947).
[FN18] Hawaii—Wilson v. Kunewa, 29 Haw. 555, 1927 WL 3220 (1927).
CJS TAXATION § 289
| http://www.floridahomesteadservices.com |
