upr000160 187

Mr, ¥• R. Rouse 15. April 2, 1952 page 1439# 101 A.L.R., page 7$7» and 129 A.L»R*, page 4$0, on the subject of "Taxation of Property owned by a public body but not devoted to public or governmental use*. An examination of the cases in these annotations will bear out the statement in Am. Juris, above quoted that the weight of authority is that property- owned by public bod­ies for proprietary purposes is devoted to public purpos­es within the meaning of tax exemption statutes. Another class of cases which I examined were those dealing with the implied immunity of a state and its a-gencies from taxation* In 163 A.L.R,, page 542, is an annotation on the sub­ject of "Immunity of State and its agencies from federal taxation as affected by the governmental or non-govern­mental character of the particular functions involved". That annotation discloses that the rule is well settled that the Federal Government may not tax a state activity which is governmental in nature, but that it may tax state activities which are proprietary in nature. ,In that con­nection the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Flint v. Stone Tracy Co,. 220 U. S. 107, had saidt "It is no part of -the essential governmental func­tions of a state to provide means of transporta­tion, supply artificial light, water and tjie like." It would have been expected that when the question of the constitutional immunity from Federal taxation of a public utility function conducted by a state or its agency was passed upon by the United States Supreme Court, the Court would have disallowed immunity• However in the case of Brush v* Commissioner of In­ternal Revenue. 300 U. S. 352, 31 L. ed. 691, the United S t a t es Supreme Court, overruling dicta to the contrary in its previous decisions, expressly held that the furnish­ing of a water supply to its inhabitants by the City of Hew Xork was a governmental function and that therefore the salary of the Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Water