The opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Robebts:
1 disagree with the majority when it concludes that a nonexempt corporation which buys real estate from a tax exempt authority is not liable for its pro-rata share of the taxes for the year of the sale. I believe that the only equitable view is that the taxpayer must *541 pay his share of the taxes; otherwise our basic proposition that all should contribute their proper share of the public expenditures becomes a nullity as to those who fortuitously purchase real estate as this appellant did on January 11, January 14, and April 4, 1966, from an instrumentality which was statutorily exempted from the requirement to pay taxes.
The majority is able to cite only one lower court decision, General State Authority v. Township of Haverford, 46 Del. Cty. Rep. 89 (1958), which supports its theory. In my view that opinion is not controlling. The public policy reasons for disallowing the continued exemption of the property clearly overcome the precedent value of this lone case. Further, I believe Moore v. Taylor, 147 Pa. 481 , 23 Atl. 768 (1892), which represented the unanimous view of seven members of this Court, is entitled to more weight than the view of one nisi prius judge; the language there employed contains an excellent exposition of the policy reasons for taxing these properties. In upholding the power of the local taxing board to tax similar property, the Moore Court said “we are of the opinion that what was done was within the scope of the general powers delegated to the board. Its duty is to see that every parcel of real estate is assessed, and, when not legally exempt from taxation, charged with its due proportion of the public burdens. . . . What equity therefore has he [the purchaser of exempt property] to acquire and enjoy property, for nearly two thirds of the year [here 354, 351 and 272 days] without contributing in the shape of taxes his just share of the public burdens? The effect of relieving him would be to increase the burdens of other taxpayers, contrary to the principle that underlies our system of taxation, viz.: that every one shall contribute his just proportion of the public expenses.” Id. at 484 , 23 Atl. at 769 .
*542 The majority argues that since property which is taxable on the date of assessment remains taxable throughout the entire year, even if sold to a tax exempt organization, the converse should also be true. However the policy reasons behind the maintenance of taxable status for the entire year are not present for the alternative proposition. When a taxing authority sets its tax rate for the tax year, it should not be foreed to speculate on the amount of the taxable property extant at the beginning of the year which may become exempt at some later date; in the name of fiscal responsibility, the taxing authority must be assured of continued taxability of all taxable property until such time as a new tax rate is set.
However, no such argument would require a property which is tax exempt at the beginning of the year from changing to a taxable status. This would merely increase the revenue to the taxing authority, a result which I am sure would not contradict public policy. At best this additional reserve could be used to keep the budget in balance or to pay for unexpected expenditures; at worst, it could be carried over as a surplus to reduce the amount of taxes required in the next year. It certainly could not be termed a “windfall” in the sense that the taxing authority (which represents all the taxpayers) is not entitled to it. It is abundantly clear to me that in the interests of fairness, all property owners who do not enjoy tax exempt status should pay their fair share of the taxes. If any windfall should be prohibited, it is the one which would permit a property owner to avoid taxes by buying from a tax exempt organization.
In addition this view comports with our general notion that all exemptions from the normal burdens of taxation should be construed most strictly. The impact of the tax exemptions which have been statutorily *543 established should never be extended beyond the actual reason for the exemption. Therefore I dissent from the majority’s decision.
Mr. Justice Cohen and Mr. Justice O’Brien join in this dissenting opinion.