Opinion

Opinion Number

Court
Louisiana Attorney General Reports
Filed
Mar 13, 1997
Status
Published
On the bench
RICHARD P. IEYOUB
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 39.4%

The opinion

Dear Mr. Naquin:

Reference is made to your recent request for an opinion of this office regarding the Revenue Sharing Act, Act No. 38 of 1996 (the "Act").

As you point out, the Act provides for the distribution of some of the Revenue Sharing Funds allotted to Lafourche Parish to Airport District No. 1 and Hospital District No. 3, even though neither entity suffered losses in 1996 due to the homestead exemption. According to your letter, Airport District No. 1 has never been a tax recipient body and Hospital District No. 3 was not a tax recipient body in 1996. Specifically, you question whether payment of revenue sharing funds to these entities would violate La. Const. Art. VII , Sec. 26 , in light of Atty. Gen. Op. No. 90-440, which determined that since a municipality "is not a tax recipient body which has experienced current losses due to homestead exemptions" an appropriation of revenue sharing funds to a municipality is unconstitutional.

In accordance with Atty. Gen. Op. No. 90-440, it is the opinion of this office that the inclusion, in the Act, of entities that have not experienced current losses due to the homestead exemption is subject to constitutional challenge on the basis that the inclusion of such entities conflicts with La. Const. Art. VII , Sec. 26 . See also: City of New Orleans v. Orleans Parish School Board , 427 So.2d 578 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1983); Atty. Gen. Op. No. 88-598.

However, as you are probably aware, the case law of this state provides that legislative enactments are presumed constitutional until declared otherwise by the judiciary. State in the Interest of JAV , 558 So.2d 214 (La. 1980); Gulf Oil Corporation v. State Mineral Board , 317 So.2d 576 (La. 1975). Our research did not reveal any cases which allege the unconstitutionality of the Act or any previous revenue sharing acts on the basis of the inclusion of entities that have not experienced current losses due to the homestead exemption.

We trust the foregoing to be of assistance.

Yours very truly,

RICHARD P. IEYOUB ATTORNEY GENERAL

By: __________________________ JEANNE-MARIE ZERINGUE BARHAM

Assistant Attorney General

RPI/JMZB/cla

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.