UIHistories Project: A History of the University of Illinois by Kalev Leetaru
N A V I G A T I O N D I G I T A L L I B R A R Y
Bookmark and Share



Repository: UIHistories Project: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1946 [PAGE 298]

Caption: Board of Trustees Minutes - 1946
This is a reduced-resolution page image for fast online browsing.


Jump to Page:
< Previous Page [Displaying Page 298 of 1528] Next Page >
[VIEW ALL PAGE THUMBNAILS]




EXTRACTED TEXT FROM PAGE:



1944]

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

295

Dean Harno, Mr. Hoagland has secured an advantageous settlement, and he recommends that we indicate our approval of the same.

The Comptroller presented this item. On motion of Mr. Davis, this settlement was approved.

ASSESSMENT OF UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS FOR GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES (6) T h e following report has been submitted by Judge Sveinbjorn Johnson, Counsel for the University in the matter of Goodman, Collector v. Board of Trustees, et al., Docket No. 28276, Supreme Court of Illinois, this being litigation of the attempt of Champaign County to assess the Illini Union Building, Men's Residence Hall, Illini Hall, and the Arcade Building for general property taxes. Judge Johnson was authorized by the Board to represent the University in this matter. Urbana, Illinois November 27, 1944 Report in re: Goodman, Collector v. Board of Trustees, et al. Docket No. 28276, Supreme Court of Illinois In October 1943 the Collector of Champaign County applied to the County Judge for leave to sell the Union Building, the Men's Residence Hall, Illini Hall and the Arcade properties for taxes for the year 1942, alleged to be due, delinquent and unpaid. I filed objections in behalf of the University and the University of Illinois Foundation, the latter the nominal owner. I made repeated efforts to have the case set for an early hearing, but the State's attorney asked for postponements, which were granted. Eventually the case was submitted and the County Judge entered an order refusing leave to sell, sustaining in all things our contentions. After September 1, 1944, Champaign County perfected its appeal to the Supreme Court from the decision of the County Court, prepared and served an abstract of the record as well as printed briefs. I checked the abstract against the testimony and Exhibits, examined the brief for the County and prepared, printed and filed a brief for the Objectors in time to get the case on the calendar of the Supreme Court for the September term. The case involved four properties, no two of them having the same history, and each, therefore, potentially raising questions of law peculiar to itself. I urged exemption from taxation on any one or all of the following grounds: 1. The properties belonged to the State, notwithstanding the legal title was in the Foundation; 2. The properties were in any event used for public educational purposes without a view to profit to anyone; and 3. T h e Foundation, if regarded as the owner, is a charitable, non profit corporation and uses all the properties for public charitable uses without a view to profit. I argued the case orally in the Supreme Court on September 25, 1944. The Supreme Court, in affirming the decision of the County Court, accepted (2) above and concluded that it was not necessary to decide points (1) or ( 3 ) , since the lower court must be affirmed in any event on the theory set forth in ( 2 ) . The opinion is concise, clearly written and admirably lucid in the statement of facts and the applicable legal rules. T h e law is now settled that the Board may use the Foundation as a trustee to hold the naked legal title to needed properties without running the risk that they will be subject to local taxation, so long as the Foundation or any of its members derive no profit from the undertaking. T h e decision also invalidates the taxes levied for the years 1943 and IQ44- The total amount at stake in this suit was approximately $80,000 exclusive of personal taxes. When I inquired of the State's attorney whether a petition for a rehearing would be filed, he said he had not yet made up his mind. I shall keep in touch with the situation and advise later when the decision has become final, either because a petition for a rehearing is not filed, or, if one be filed, because it has been disposed of by the Court. The concluding paragraph in the opinion politely but firmly reminds the community of the great benefit it derives from the presence of the University