upholding denial of exemption where BTA found that the hospital’s office building “was used as a place ‘in which the tenant-physician conducts and furthers his own private practice, paying competitive rental therefor’ ”
How later courts described this case
- upholding denial of exemption where BTA found that the hospital’s office building “was used as a place ‘in which the tenant-physician conducts and furthers his own private practice, paying competitive rental therefor’ ”
- the provision “ ‘has no application to noncharitable institutions seeking tax exemption under R.C. 5709.12’ ”
- no exemption when nonprofit hospital leased to for-profit physicians
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Herbert, J.,
dissenting. By the enactment of R. 0. 5709.121, the General Assembly has announced its desire that certain types of tax exemptions for the institutions mentioned in that statute should not be restrictively considered. Cf. Good Samaritan Hospital v. Porterfield (1972), 29 Ohio St. 2d 25 , 278 N. E. 2d 26 . While I have often dwelt upon the legislative use of the phrase “exclusively for charitable purposes,” the employment of the flaccid word “incidental” seems to represent a wide swing of the pendulum in the opposite direction. If that is the legislative will where certain property is concerned, so be it. See Galvin v. Masonic Toledo Trust (1973), 34 Ohio St. 2d 157 , 296 N. E. 2d 542 .