O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 36-62-3 (2019)

Constitutional authority for chapter; finding of public purposes; tax exemption

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter is passed pursuant to authority granted the General Assembly by Article IX, Section VI, Paragraph III of the Constitution of this state. Each authority created by this chapter is created for nonprofit and public purposes, and it is found, determined, and declared that the creation of each such authority and the carrying out of

its corporate purposes is in all respects for the benefit of the people of this state and that the authority is an institution of purely public charity and will be performing an essential governmental function in the exercise of the power conferred upon it by this chapter. For such reasons, the state covenants, from time to time, with the holders of the bonds issued under this chapter that such authority shall be required to pay no taxes or assessments imposed by the state or any of its counties, municipal corporations, political subdivisions, or taxing districts upon any property acquired by the authority or under its jurisdiction, control, possession, or supervision or leased by it to others (other than property leased for the purposes of a ‘‘project’’ as defined in subparagraph ( J) or (K) of paragraph (6) of Code Section 36-62-2, which shall be taxable by the state and its counties, municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and taxing districts) or upon its activities in the operation or maintenance of any such property or on any income derived by the authority in the form of fees, recording fees, rentals, charges, purchase price, installments, or otherwise, and that the bonds of such authority, their transfer, and the income therefrom shall at all times be exempt from taxation within this state. The tax exemption provided in this Code section shall not include any exemption from sales and use tax on property purchased by the authority or for use by the authority.

History

Ga. L. 1963, p. 531, § 13; Ga. L. 1969, p. 137, § 10; Ga. L. 1979, p. 413, § 2; Ga. L. 1980, p. 1332, § 2; Ga. L. 1983, p. 3, § 57; Ga. L. 1987, p. 3, § 36; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 36.

Annotations

Cross references. - Prepayment of ad valorem or school taxes by developers of major industrial projects, § 48-5-31. Editor’s notes. - Ga. L. 1979, p. 413, § 3, which Act amended this section, provides that if any provision of § 1 or § 2 of the Act is held to be invalid or inoperative, the remaining provisions of the Act shall be deemed to be void and of no effect. Ga. L. 1980, p. 1332, § 3, which Act

amended this section, provides that if any part of the Act is declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional, such adjudication shall affect the other parts of the Act, which shall thereafter be of no force and effect. Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Tax-Exempt Financing of Section 8 Housing Projects,’’ see 15 Ga. St. B. J. 68 (1978). For article discussing the role of Georgia development authorities in tax-exempt financing of private business, see 16 Ga. St. B. J. 8 (1979). For article discussing tax-exempt financing in Georgia, see 18 Ga. St. B. J. 20 (1981).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Business taking leasehold from authority subject to taxation. - While the authority is exempt under O.C.G.A. § 36-62-3, a business which takes a leasehold from the authority is subject to ad valorem taxation on the fair market value of the possessory interest held. DeKalb County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. W.C. Harris & Co., 248 Ga. 277, 282 S.E.2d 880 (1981). Bond approval not proper. - Trial

court erred by validating taxable revenue bonds for a county development authority as the order validating the bonds failed to set forth sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the court’s holdings and, thus, failed to satisfy the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 9-11-52(a). Sherman v. Dev. Auth., 320 Ga. App. 689, 740 S.E.2d 663 (2013). Tax exempt status not shown. - In a taxpayer’s suit against a county and offi-

cials, the court upheld the grant of summary judgment to the county because the testimony of the counsel for the taxpayers was insufficient to create an issue of material fact on the taxpayer’s claims in regard to the tax-exempt status of the county development authority-owned

properties as there was no evidence that any of the properties actually possessed the characteristics of an office building or hotel facility as defined in O.C.G.A. § 36-62-2. SJN Props., LLC v. Fulton County Bd. of Assessors, 296 Ga. 793, 770 S.E.2d 832 (2015).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Property held by other entity subject to taxation. - While a development authority is not required to pay any ad valorem taxes on any estate the authority

holds, an estate in property held by another entity is not exempt from ad valorem taxation. 1974 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U74-5.

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 64 C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, §§ 1279, 1280. 64A C.J.S., Municipal Corporations, § 2267 et seq. ALR. - Bond or warrant of governmen-

tal subdivision as subject of taxation or exemption, 44 A.L.R. 510. Tax exemptions and the contract clause, 173 A.L.R. 15.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases, 2001–2015 · leading case: Sjn Props., LLC. v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors, 770 S.E.2d 832 (Ga. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sjn Props., LLC. v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors, 770 S.E.2d 832 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 4× “See OCGA §§ 36-62-3, *798 36-62-2 (6) (H) (vi) and (J).”

Clayton Cnty. Bd. of Tax Assessors v. City of Atlanta, 648 S.E.2d 701 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “7 OCGA § 36-62-3; see J.A.T.T. Title Holding Corp.”

Sherman v. Dev. Auth., 730 S.E.2d 113 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “While DAFC is exempt under OCGA § 36-62-3, a business which takes a leasehold from the authority is subject to ad valorem taxation on the fair market value of the possessory interest held.”

Sherman v. Dev. Auth., 740 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “While DAFC is exempt from such taxes under OCGA § 36-62-3, a business which takes a leasehold from the authority is subject to ad valorem taxation on the fair market value of the possessory interest held.”

Sherman v. Dev. Auth., 739 S.E.2d 457 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “While DAFC is exempt from such taxes under OCGA § 36-62-3, a business which takes a leasehold from the authority is subject to ad valorem taxation on the fair market value of the possessory interest held.”

White v. Bd. of Com'rs of McDuffie Cnty., 555 S.E.2d 45 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 36-62-3. 15 Olley Valley Estates, supra at 784.”

Sjn Props., LLC. v. Fulton Cnty. Bd. of Assessors (Ga. 2015). · cites it 2× “See OCGA §§ 36-62-3, 36-62-2 (6) (H) (vi), (J) and (K).”

John Sherman v. Dev. Auth. Of (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” Accordingly, the Memorandum dictates that the Board will determine the fee simple market value of the Project utilizing the income approach, and then will determine the value of Lowe’s leasehold interest by utilizing a “ramp-up schedule.”

John S. Sherman v. Dev. Auth. of Fulton Cnty. (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “On December 21, the day of the scheduled hearing,3 Sherman filed a document captioned “Objections to Bond Validation Petition,” wherein he requested, inter alia, that the trial court provide an order setting forth findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to OCGA §…”

John S. Sherman v. Dev. Auth. of Fulton Cnty. (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “” The “ramp-up schedule” assumes that the value of the leasehold interest in the first year of the lease is 50 percent of the fee simple market value, and that value increases by 5 percent each year as the ten-year term progresses and as Owens moves closer to receiving the…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.