exceptional privilege in Louisiana

2006Zapata Haynie Corp. v. Larpenter, 583 So.2d 867 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1991) writ denied.

2006Zapata Haynie Corp. v. Larpenter, 583 So. 2d 867 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1991), Writ Denied.

2010Showboat Star P’ship v. Slaughter, 00-1227 (La.4/3/01), 789 So.2d 554, 560 ; McNamara v. Central Marine Serv., Inc., 507 So.2d 207, 208 (La.1987). 7 .

2004Consequently, the general principle that tax exemptions are an exceptional privilege and must be affirmatively and clearly established and are strictly construed against the taxpayer, Showboat Star Partnership v. Slaughter, 00-1227, p. 10 (La.4/3/01), 789 So.2d 554, 560 ; Bill Roberts, Inc. v. McNamara, 539 So.2d 1226, 1229 (La.1989); McNamara v. Central Marine Serv., Inc., 507 So.2d 207, 208 (La.1987), is inapplicable in this case. [3] La.

2025App. 4 Cir. 3/27/13), 112 So.3d 942, 948 (quoting Sherwood Forest Country Club v. Litchfield, 2008- 0194, p. 6 (La. 12/19/08), 998 So.2d 56, 61 ).

2019“Nevertheless, the first and foremost principle in a tax exemption case is that an exemption, being an exceptional privilege, must be expressly and clearly conferred in plain terms.” Sherwood Forest Country Club v. Litchfield, 08-0194, p. 6 (La. 12/19/08), 998 So. 2d 56, 61 .

1936In the case of Pearce v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 , this court said: “An exemption from taxation is an exceptional privilege which must be clearly, unequivocally, and affirmatively established; provisions for such exemption being strictly construed.” Again, in Penick & Ford v. Ehret, 166 La. 1 , 116 So. 572, 574 , the court said: “Exemptions from taxation are strictly construed, and those claiming the benefit of such exemptions must bring themselves clearly within the provisions of the law by which they are created.” In Fletcher’s Cyc. of Corporations, vol. 14, No. 6973, the rule i

1936In the case of Pearce v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 , this court said: “An exemption from taxation is an exceptional privilege which must be clearly, unequivocally, and affirmatively established; provisions for such exemption being strictly construed.” Again, in Penick & Ford v. Ehret, 166 La. 1 , 116 So. 572, 574 , the court said: “Exemptions from taxation are strictly construed, and those claiming the benefit of such exemptions must bring themselves clearly within the provisions of the law by which they are created.” In Fletcher’s Cyc. of Corporations, vol. 14, No. 6973, the rule i

2002Zapata Haynie Corp. v. Larpenter , 583 So.2d 867 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1991), writ denied; Ruston v. Riser , 191 So.2d 665 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1966).

2000Zapata Haney Corp. v. Larpenter, 583 So.2d 867 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1991) writ denied and Ruston Hospital v. Riser, 191 So.2d 665 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1966).

1998In Meyers v. Flournoy, 209 La. 812 , 25 So.2d 601 (La. 1946), the Supreme Court observed that: "It is the uniform and settled jurisprudence of this and other states that an exemption from taxation, being an exceptional privilege, must be clearly, unequivocally and affirmatively established." Further, in Mattingly v. Vial , 193 La. 1 , 190 So. 333 (La. 1939), the Court observed: "There is no principal of interpretation more firmly and uniformly established by the jurisprudence of this and the other States than the unbroken rule that exemptions from taxation are to be strictly construed against

1987Vulcan Foundry, Inc. v. McNamara, 414 So.2d 1193, 1197 (La.1982); Ethyl Corp. v. Collector of Revenue, 351 So.2d 1290, 1293 (La.App.1977), writ denied, 353 So.2d 1035 (La.1978) (citing Mattingly v. Vial, 193 La. 1 , 190 So. 313 (1939) and Meyers v. Flournoy, 209 La. 812 , 25 So.2d 601, 603 (1946)). *209 In this case we must determine the intent of the Legislature and the scope of the exemption granted by La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 47:305.1(A).

1936In the case of Pearce v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 , this court said: “An exemption from taxation is an exceptional privilege which must be clearly, unequivocally, and affirmatively established; provisions for such exemption being strictly construed.” Again, in Penick & Ford v. Ehret, 166 La. 1 , 116 So. 572, 574 , the court said: “Exemptions from taxation are strictly construed, and those claiming' the benefit of such exemptions must bring themselves clearly within the provisions of the law by which they are created.” In Fletcher’s Cyc. of Corporations, vol. 14, No. 6973, the rule

1936In the case of Pearce v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 , this court said: “An exemption from taxation is an exceptional privilege which must be clearly, unequivocally, and affirmatively established; provisions for such exemption being strictly construed.” Again, in Penick & Ford v. Ehret, 166 La. 1 , 116 So. 572, 574 , the court said: “Exemptions from taxation are strictly construed, and those claiming the benefit of such exemptions must bring themselves clearly within the provisions of the law by which they are created.” In Fletcher’s Cyc. of Corporations, vol. 14, No. 6973, the rule i

1936In the case of Pearce v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 , this court said: “An exemption from taxation is an exceptional privilege which must be clearly, unequivocally, and affirmatively established; provisions for such exemption being strictly construed.” Again, in Penick & Ford v. Ehret, 166 La. 1 , 116 So. 572, 574 , the court said: “Exemptions from taxation are strictly construed, and those claiming' the benefit of such exemptions must bring themselves clearly within the provisions of the law by which they are created.” In Fletcher’s Cyc. of Corporations, vol. 14, No. 6973, the rule

1936In the case of Pearce v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 , this court said: “An exemption from taxation is an exceptional privilege which must be clearly, unequivocally, and affirmatively established; provisions for such exemption being strictly construed.” Again, in Penick & Ford v. Ehret, 166 La. 1 , 116 So. 572, 574 , the court said: “Exemptions from taxation are strictly construed, and those claiming the benefit of such exemptions must bring themselves clearly within the provisions of the law by which they are created.” In Fletcher’s Cyc. of Corporations, vol. 14, No. 6973, the rule i

2025Filmore Parc Apartments II, 2016-0568, p. 4, 212 So.3d at 624 (quoting Abundance Square Assocs., L.P., 2010- 0324, p. 5, 62 So.3d at 263 ).

2025App. 4 Cir. 2/15/27), 212 So.3d 621, 624 ).

2005Id., citing Zapata Haynie Corp. v. Larpenter, 583 So.2d 867 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991), writ denied, 589 So.2d 1071 (La.1991). | (¡In order to determine the issue on appeal, we must interpret a constitutional provision, which is a question of law.

2003Zapata Haynie Corp. v. Larpenter, 583 So.2d 867 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991), writ denied, 589 So.2d 1071 (La.1991).

1936Plausible hesitation warrants an adverse finding.” The contention that Act No. 8 of 1932 and Act No. 18 of 1934 violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is conclusively answered by the United States Supreme Court in State Board of Tax Com’rs of Indiana v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527 , 51 S.Ct. 540 , 75 L.Ed. 1248 , 73 A.L.R. 1464 .

1936Plausible hesitation warrants an adverse finding.” The contention that Act No. 8 of 1932 and Act No. 18 of 1934 violate the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is conclusively answered by the United States Supreme Court in State Board of Tax Com’rs of Indiana v. Jackson, 283 U.S. 527 , 51 S.Ct. 540 , 75 L.Ed. 1248 , 73 A.L.R. 1464 .

2025Filmore Parc Apartments II, 2016-0568, p. 4, 212 So.3d at 624 (quoting Abundance Square Assocs., L.P., 2010- 0324, p. 5, 62 So.3d at 263 ).

2015R & B Falcon Drilling USA, Inc. v. Secretary, Department of Revenue, 09-0256, p. 4 n. 6 (La.App. 1st Cir.1/11/10), 31 So.3d 1083 , 1086 n. 6.

2015Ocean Energy, Inc., 880 So.2d at 6 n. 2.

2013Id., 03-0538 at p. 5, 860 So.2d at 168 .

2013Id., 03-0538 at p. 5, 860 So.2d at 168 .

2005Id., citing Zapata Haynie Corp. v. Larpenter, 583 So.2d 867 (La.App. 1st Cir.1991), writ denied, 589 So.2d 1071 (La.1991). | (¡In order to determine the issue on appeal, we must interpret a constitutional provision, which is a question of law.

1991McNamara v. Central Marine Service, Inc., 507 So.2d 207 (La.1987); Zapata Gulf Marine Operators, Inc. v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 554 So.2d at 1257 .

1987Vulcan Foundry, Inc. v. McNamara, 414 So.2d 1193, 1197 (La.1982); Ethyl Corp. v. Collector of Revenue, 351 So.2d 1290, 1293 (La.App.1977), writ denied, 353 So.2d 1035 (La.1978) (citing Mattingly v. Vial, 193 La. 1 , 190 So. 313 (1939) and Meyers v. Flournoy, 209 La. 812 , 25 So.2d 601, 603 (1946)). *209 In this case we must determine the intent of the Legislature and the scope of the exemption granted by La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 47:305.1(A).

1943“A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that statutes granting tax exemptions are to be strictly construed because they grant an exceptional privilege, and the right to enjoy the exemption must be clearly, unequivocally and affirmatively established.” Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Fontenot, 198 La. 644 , 4 So.2d 634, 643 , and cases cited therein.

1943“A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that statutes granting tax exemptions are to be strictly construed because they grant an exceptional privilege, and the right to enjoy the exemption must be clearly, unequivocally and affirmatively established.” Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana v. Fontenot, 198 La. 644 , 4 So.2d 634, 643 , and cases cited therein.

1941Hibernia National Bank et al. v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 195 La. 43 , 196 So. 15 ; Pearce et al. v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 ; and Louisiana & N. W.

1941Hibernia National Bank et al. v. Louisiana Tax Commission, 195 La. 43 , 196 So. 15 ; Pearce et al. v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 ; and Louisiana & N. W.

1934State v. Jeter, 151 La. 1011 , 92 So. 594 ; Pearce v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 ; Penick & Ford v. Ehret, 166 La. 1 , 116 So. 572 ; Guffey Pet.

1934State v. Jeter, 151 La. 1011 , 92 So. 594 ; Pearce v. Couvillon, 164 La. 155 , 113 So. 801 ; Penick & Ford v. Ehret, 166 La. 1 , 116 So. 572 ; Guffey Pet.