Statutes exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed. Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okla. 273, 264 P. 816; Watkins-Glen v. Hager, 252 N.Y. S. 146. Exemptions from taxation are not favored. Board of Com'rs v. Sancomb, 251 N Y S. 607. 2.
Lankford v. Schroeder, supra. It is contended by the plaintiff that the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okl. 273, 264 P. 816, has reversed its position on this proposition. However, in the opinion on rehearing, the court said (page 819):
It is fundamental that property is never exempt from taxation except by specific and definite provisions of the law and that the legislature cannot grant an exemption from taxation except as provided by the constitution. Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okla. 273, 264 P. 816 (1928); Independent School Dist. No. 9 v. Glass, 639 P.2d 1233 (Okla. 1982).
The rule in this jurisdiction is that property never is exempt from taxation except by special and definite provision of law. Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okla. 273, 264 P. 816; Home-Stake Production Co. v. Board of Equal., etc., Okla., 416 P.2d 917. Defendants' conclusion that because section 274, supra, provides a city's liability for such special assessments without mention of school districts is unsound.
Baldwin v. Board of Tax-Roll Corrections, Okla., 331 P.2d 412. The Constitution, Art. V § 50, forbids legislative exemption of any property from taxation other than property enumerated under Constitution, Art. X § 6. The Legislature may substitute one form of taxation for another, since there is no positive requirement that property be taxed upon an ad valorem basis. In re Assessment of Chickasha Cotton Oil Co., 80 Okla. 101, 194 P. 215; Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okla. 273, 264 P. 816. Neither can the Legislature grant exemptions not recognized by the Constitution, nor enlarge exemptions recognized.
"A tax exemption claim cannot be sustained unless it is shown that it comes clearly within the provisions of the law under which the exemption is claimed." And in Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okla. 273, 264 P. 816, it is held in the third paragraph of the syllabus: "Under the recognized rule of law, property is never exempted from taxation except by a special and definite provision of law."
It is enough to say they do not support the contention here made. Protestants also cite Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okla. 273, 264 P. 816. There it was held that certain property taken over and held by bank commissioners for specified purposes had no exemption from taxation.
Under State constitutions and statutes exempting from taxation property belonging to a State it has been held that an ownership which does not comprise all the legal and equitable interests in the land was insufficient for an exemption, and likewise, that ownership as trustee was not the ownership necessary for an exemption. People v. University of Illinois, 357 Ill. 369. Regents of Kansas State Agricultural College v. Hamilton, 28 Kan. 376. St. Louis v. Wenneker, 145 Mo. 230. Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okla. 273. State v. Commissioners of Beadle County, 53 S.D. 609. Spokane County v. Spokane, 169 Wn. 355. Seattle v. King County, 3 Wn.2d 26. Comstock v. Boyle, 144 Wis. 180.
The definition of the "owner," and the use of the term owning or possessing, in other sections of the act renders it apparent that the choice of the word "owned" in the exemption section was deliberate, and this is accentuated by the further provision that all other vehicles must be registered at the regular rate. Exemption statutes are strictly construed against the exemption. Home Building Loan Ass'n of Shawnee v. State (1931) 156 Okla. 89, 9 P.2d 731; Wenner v. Mothersead (1927) 129 Okla. 273, 264 P. 816. And an exemption from taxation will not be created by implication, but must be granted in terms too plain to be mistaken. 26 R. C. L. 313. Nor does the exemption of state property extend to that belonging to a private corporation, though used for strictly public purposes.
The exemption statute is to be strictly construed against the exemption. Oklahoma City v. Shields (1908) 22 Okla. 625. 100 P. 559; Wenner, County Treas., et al. v. Mothersead et al. (1927) 129 Okla. 273, 264 P. 816; Home Bldg. Loan Ass'n v. State (1931) 156 Okla. 89, 9 P.2d 731. And where the language is plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction. First Nat. Bank of Anadarko v. Mills (1928) 134 Okla. 186, 272 P. 840; McCain v. State Election Board et al. (1930) 144 Okla. 85, 289 P. 759. We therefore conclude that under the agreed facts the land involved was not a homestead within the purview of the tax exemption statute.