World War II Theatre, Inc. v. Norman White, Chief Financial Officer and Director of Finance, City of New Orleans; Erroll G. Williams, Assessor, Orleans Parish; And Lawrence E. Chehardy, Chairman, Louisiana Tax Commission

WORLD WAR II THEATRE, * NO. 2025-CA-0398
INC.
*
VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL
*
NORMAN WHITE, CHIEF FOURTH CIRCUIT
FINANCIAL OFFICER AND *
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE, STATE OF LOUISIANA
CITY OF NEW ORLEANS; *******
ERROLL G. WILLIAMS,
ASSESSOR, ORLEANS
PARISH; AND LAWRENCE E.
CHEHARDY, CHAIRMAN,
LOUISIANA TAX
COMMISSION

APPEAL FROM
BOARD OF TAX APPEALS
NO. L01363,
Judge Cade R. Cole,
******
Judge Paula A. Brown
******
(Court composed of Chief Judge Roland L. Belsome, Judge Paula A. Brown, Judge
Rachael D. Johnson)

Cheryl Mollere Kornick
Robert S. Angelico
Tyler D. Trew
LISKOW & LEWIS, APLC
701 Poydras Street, Suite 5000
New Orleans, LA 70139

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE

John J. Weiler
Reese F. Williamson
WEILER & REES, LLC
909 Poydras Street, Suite 1250
New Orleans, LA 70112

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

JUDGMENT VACATED;
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

FEBRUARY 02, 2026

PAB
RLB
RDJ

This is a tax dispute. Appellant Erroll G. Williams, in his capacity as

Assessor for the Orleans Parish Assessor’s Office (the “Assessor”), appeals the

May 12, 2025 judgment rendered by the Board of Tax Appeals, State of Louisiana,

Local Tax Division (the “BTA”). The judgment found that Appellee, World War

II Theatre, Inc. (the “Theatre”), was exempt from the taxes it paid under protest for

City of New Orleans 2022 Original Business Personal Property Tax Bill No.

102102511P in the amount of $183,596.99 and City of New Orleans 2022 Original

Real Estate Tax Bill No. 102103307 in the amount of $370,425.44 (collectively,

the “2022 taxes”). After calculating the accrued interest on the monies paid under

protest and placed into escrow, the BTA awarded the Theatre refunds in the

amounts of $186,571.26 and $376,426.33. For the reasons that follow, we vacate

the BTA’s May 12, 2025 judgment and remand the matter for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Many of the facts leading to the instant appeal were previously recited by

this Court in World War II Theatre, Inc. v. White, 24-0474 (La. App. 4 Cir.

2/18/25), 409 So.3d 275 (“World War II 1.0”). We will use portions of that

1

recitation here. The property at issue is the Higgins Hotel & Conference Center

(the “Hotel”), which is wholly owned and operated by the Theatre. “The Theatre

is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation,1 whose sole shareholder is National World

War II Museum, Inc. ([the] “Museum”).” World War II 1.0, 24-0474, p. 2, 409

So.3d at 278. “The Theatre owns the Hotel[,] which is located across the street

from the Museum.” Id. “The Theatre filed an application in 2020 for tax exempt

status of the Hotel for tax year 2021, which was denied by the Assessor.” Id. The

Assessor then issued to the Hotel tax bills for property and business personal

property taxes for the 2022 tax year, both of which had a delinquency date of

March 16, 2022. “On or about February 15, 2022, the Theatre paid the taxes under

protest.” Id. “Pursuant to La. R.S. 47:2134(C)(1)-(2),2 the Theatre notified the tax

collector of its intention to file suit.” Id.

1 Found in the Internal Revenue Code at 26 USCA § 501, the statute defines, in part, entities that

are exempt from Federal income taxes as “[c]orporations . . . organized and operated exclusively
for . . . educational purposes . . . no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any
private shareholder or individual . . . .”
2 La. R.S. 47:21349 (C)(1)-(2) provides,

(1) A person resisting the payment of an amount of ad valorem tax due or the enforcement
of a provision of the ad valorem tax law and thereby intending to maintain a legality
challenge shall timely pay the disputed amount due under protest to the officer or officers
designated by law for the collection of the tax and shall give such officer or officers, notice
at the time of payment of his intention to file suit for the recovery of the protested tax. The
portion of the taxes that is paid by the taxpayer to the collecting officer or officers that is
neither in dispute nor the subject of a suit contesting the legality of the assessment shall not
be made subject to the protest. The taxpayer shall submit separate payments for the
disputed amount of tax due and the amount that is not in dispute and not subject to the
protest. Upon receipt of a notice, the protested amount shall be segregated and held by the
collecting officer for a period of thirty days.

(2) A legality challenge suit must be filed within thirty days from the date of the protested
payment. If a suit is timely filed contesting the legality of the tax or the enforcement of a
provision of the tax law and seeking recovery of the tax, then that portion of the taxes paid
that are in dispute shall be further deemed as paid under protest, and that amount shall be
segregated and shall be further held pending the outcome of the suit. The portion of the
taxes that is paid by the taxpayer to the collecting officer or officers that is neither in
dispute nor the subject of a suit contesting the legality of the tax shall not be made subject
to the protest.

2

As more specifically laid out in World War II 1.0:

On March 8, 2022, the Theatre filed a [Petition to Recover Taxes Paid
Under Protest (the “Petition”)]. In [the Petition], the Theatre alleged that it
[was] entitled to exemption from ad valorem taxes pursuant to La. Const.
art. VII[, §] 21(B) and had timely filed the application for exemption. The
Assessor filed peremptory exceptions and an answer on April 7, 2022. On
June 7, 2022, the Theatre filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a
judgment that it was entitled to tax exemption for the tax year 2022. On
June 15, 2022, the Assessor filed supplemental exceptions of no cause of
action, no right of action and prescription alleging that pursuant to La. R.S.
33:2828(D),[3] the Assessor’s exceptions should be sustained because the
Theatre failed to timely apply for the tax exemption.

On August 11, 2022, the BTA held a hearing on the Assessor’s peremptory
exceptions. The BTA rendered judgment and denied the Assessor’s
exceptions of no cause of action, no right of action and prescription. On
November 8, 2022, the Assessor filed a cross motion for summary
judgment arguing that the Theatre’s tax-exempt status should be denied.
On December 8, 2022, the BTA held a hearing on both motions for
summary judgment. The BTA rendered judgment denying all the motions
for summary judgment on March 8, 2023.

The matter proceeded to trial on September 14, 2023. On December 13,
2023, the BTA issued its Order with Written Reasons. The BTA ruled in
favor of the Theatre, finding that the Hotel operates in support of the
Museum’s mission and the Hotel and its amenities are essential to the
Museum’s charitable purpose. The BTA also held that the Hotel was
exempt from Orleans Parish ad valorem taxes for 2022, and that the
Theatre was entitled to a full refund of the payments paid under protest.

Id. at pp. 2-3, 409 So.3d at 278.

In its Written Reasons for the December 13, 2023 Order, the BTA relied on:

its interpretation of La. Const. art. VII, § 21(B); the decision rendered in the case

of Hotel Dieu v. Williams, 403 So.2d 1255 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/31/81) aff’d 410

So.2d 1111 (La. 1982); and the testimony of Steven Watson (“Mr. Watson”),

3 Louisiana Revised Statutes article 33:2828(D), which was later repealed by Acts 2024, No.

422, § 1, effective August 1, 2024, provided at the time the Theatre filed its Petition:

D. Each assessor shall evaluate and grant or deny the request for tax exemption,
or grant a partial tax exemption based on the assessed value of that proportion of
the property not being used for an exempt purpose, by the first day of August of
each year which shall determine the liability for or exemption from taxation for
the calendar year. Each determination by the assessor shall be subject to review as
provided by law.

3

President of both the Theatre and the Museum. The BTA noted that when it

reviewed the Theatre’s federal tax returns, the Theatre reported some of its income

as Unrelated Business Taxable Income (“UBTI”), which included revenue from

such sources as: weddings; corporate parties; private group reservations; individual

guests who did not identify the Museum as their reason for visiting; and revenue

from the bars, restaurants and shops located in the Hotel. Mr. Watson testified that

the UBTI was merely incidental to the amenities needed for the Hotel to support

the Museum.

Mr. Watson then clarified that he had misspoken in an earlier deposition, in

which he related that the Hotel was intended to grow the Museum’s endowment.

He explained that the endowment exists to support the educational, charitable and

social purposes of the Museum and was used to fund scholarships, positions and

exhibits. However, at the September 14, 2023 trial, Mr. Watson testified that the

Hotel was not intended to be a source of funding for the endowment. He then went

on to describe exactly how the Hotel supports and benefits the Museum.

According to Mr. Watson, the Museum has a number of group programs and is the

largest client of the Hotel. The Theatre provides group bookings for the Museum

at below-market rates, and does not charge the Museum for the use of its

conference center. This helps to facilitate the Museum’s International World War

II Conference, the largest conference of its kind, with over 35 speakers from

around the world and 500 attendees over the course of three days. Additionally,

the Museum provides educational residency programs, which include training for

teachers and college faculty.

Interpreting La. Const. art. VII, § 21(B), the BTA found that, although the

Theatre represented to the IRS that it had income that was either unrelated to its

4

exempt purpose or not substantially related to its exempt purpose, § 21(B) does not

require a substantial relationship. Finding Mr. Watson’s testimony to be credible,

the BTA concluded that: the Museum and its surrounding campus were working to

accomplish their mission by becoming a cultural, educational and social institution;

the Hotel provided convenient, discounted services to the Museum, was used

primarily by the Museum, and was run in a way that prioritizes supporting the

Museum’s mission; and the Hotel and its amenities were essential to attracting and

hosting cultural gatherings and academic symposia.

“The Assessor filed a motion for new trial arguing principally that new

evidence, an Internal Revenue Service Form 990 [(“IRS Form 990”)] for the period

July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, which was not available at the time of trial,

[was] material to whether the Hotel qualifie[d] for the exemption.” Id. at pp. 3-4,

409 So.3d at 279. On appeal, this Court affirmed the denial of the Assessor’s

exceptions of no cause of action, no right of action, and prescription; however,

finding that the BTA erred when it did not consider the IRS Form 990, we vacated

the judgment granting the Hotel tax exempt status and remanded the matter to the

BTA for consideration of the IRS Form 990 in rendering a final judgment on the

merits. World War II 1.0, 24-0474, p. 12, 409 So.3d at 283-84.

Shortly after we published that opinion, on February 27, 2025, the parties

held a status conference, where it was stipulated that the matter on remand would

be decided on the record—with the addition of the Theatre’s IRS Form 990, the

Assessor’s Appellant Brief, the Theatre’s Appellee Brief and the Assessor’s

Appellant Reply Brief. After considering this new information, the BTA issued

another judgment and written reasons on May 12, 2025, finding that although the

IRS Form 990 reflected a slightly higher amount of UBTI for the Hotel and that the

5

Hotel turned a profit, it did not change the fact that the large majority of Hotel

revenue was related to the Museum’s charitable purpose—ergo, the Hotel is

exempted from ad valorem property tax for 2022 pursuant to La. Const. art. VII, §

21(B). The Assessor timely appealed that decision.

The parties appeared before this Court for oral argument on November 3,

2025. Following, on November 18, 2025, this Court issued an order inviting the

parties to submit additional briefing to show cause why La. R.S. 33:2828(D) is or

is not the controlling law for the matter currently under review by this Court. As

we noted in that order, La. R.S. 33:2828(D), was enacted by Acts 2005, No. 342, §

1, effective June 30, 2005, and was still effective at the time the Theatre filed its

Petition in the instant matter.4 The statute provided, in pertinent part, that “[e]ach

assessor shall evaluate and grant or deny the request for tax exemption, or grant a

partial tax exemption based on the assessed value of that proportion of the property

not being used for an exempt purpose.” La. R.S. 33:2828(D) (emphasis added).

Both parties filed supplemental briefs, each arguing that jurisprudence precluded a

partial exemption.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court recently explained, “Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:1435[5]

provides the courts of appeal with exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions or
4 Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:2828 was later repealed in its entirety by Acts 2024, No. 422, §

1, effective August 1, 2024.
5 Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:1435 establishes:

A. Except as provided in Article V, Section 5(D) of the Constitution of Louisiana,
the courts of appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions or
judgments of the board, and the judgment of any such court shall be subject to
further review in accordance with the law relating to civil matters.

B. The court of appeal where a case would be appealable pursuant to R.S.
47:1436 may exercise supervisory jurisdiction over the case pending before the
board in the same manner as provided for in a civil matter pending in a district

6

judgments of the BTA.” Filmore Parc Apartments II v. White, 24-0475, p. 12 (La.

App. 4 Cir. 2/14/25), 418 So.3d 42, 52. “An appellate court applies the manifest

error standard of review to the Board's judgment.” Int’l Rivercenter Lessee, L.L.C.

v. Robinson, 22-0428, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/28/22), 355 So.3d 1125, 1132.

“That is, an appellate court will not reverse the Board’s judgment unless the Board

1. ‘failed to correctly apply the law and adhere to procedural standards or’ 2. ‘the

Board’s findings of fact are manifestly erroneous in view of the evidence on the

entire record.’” Id. (quoting Pinnacle Polymers, LLC v. St. John the Baptist Par.

Sales, 19-310, p. 10 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/24/21), 316 So.3d 1264, 1271); see also

Int'l Paper, Inc. v. Bridges, 07-1151, p. 9 (La. 1/16/08), 972 So.2d 1121, 1127-28.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

The Assessor offers five assignments of error for our review,6 which can be

narrowed to a single issue—whether the BTA erred in its interpretation and

court within its circuit. The supreme court may exercise supervisory jurisdiction
over the board in all of its cases, in the same manner as provided for in civil
matters.

C. Upon such review, the courts shall have the power to affirm or, if the decision
or judgment of the board is not in accordance with law or is manifestly erroneous
on the facts considering the record as a whole, to modify, or to reverse the
decision or judgment of the board, with or without remanding the case for further
proceedings.

D. If a judgment of the board is to be modified or reversed and one court of
appeal judge dissents, the case shall be reargued before a panel of at least five
judges prior to rendition of judgment, and a majority shall concur to render
judgment.
6 Specifically, the Assessor asserts:

A. The BTA erred by failing to correctly interpret and apply the legal test to
determine whether a property is exempt from ad valorem tax pursuant to La.
Const. art. VII, § 21(B).

B. The BTA erred in its interpretation and application of La. Const. art. VII, §
21(B), because it interpreted and applied to constitutional test to grant an ad
valorem tax exemption upon a finding that a “majority” of the commercial uses or
operations are not unrelated to the exempt purpose of the property owner, rather
than the strict requirement set forth in the constitution, as interpreted by the
Courts and expressly set forth by the constitutional drafters, which only grants the

7

application of La. Const. art. VII, § 21(B) when it found that the Hotel is exempt

from payment of ad valorem property tax. However, as we will more fully

illuminate in the following discussion, because we find that the BTA erred when it

did not apply the more specific statute in effect at the time of its ruling—La. R.S.

33:2828(D)—we will pretermit discussion of the Assessor’s putative errors.

DISCUSSION7

In their supplemental briefs, both the Assessor and the Theatre rely on the

case of Johnson v. New Orleans Charities Bldg. Corp., 00-2772 (La. App. 1 Cir.

2/15/02), 812 So.2d 741 for that court’s interpretation of the Louisiana

Constitution of 1974, Article VII, § 21. More specifically, both parties assert that

the Johnson Court’s reading of that portion of the Constitution stands for the

proposition that there can be no partial exemption from ad valorem taxes for a non-

profit entity. At all times pertinent to our review, the relevant portions of Article

VII, § 21 provided:

Section 21. In addition to the homestead exemption provided for in
Section 20 of this Article, the following property and no other shall be
exempt from ad valorem taxation:

exemption to a property if “none” of the commercial uses or operations are
unrelated to the exempt purpose of the property owner.

C. The BTA erred by interpreting and applying La. Const. art. VII, § 21(B) in
direct conflict with the express intentions of the drafters of constitutional test.

D. The BTA erred in its application of the legal standards and burden of proof on
Theatre, Inc. in this case, which is the strict construction legal standard and
heightened burden of proof applicable in all tax exemption cases.

E. The BTA erred in ruling that the Hotel met the exemption test under La. Const.
art. VII, § 21(B) and qualified for an ad valorem tax exemption.
7 We note that this discussion will refer to documents and information found on government

websites. As we explained in Minor Children v. Roman Catholic Church of Archdiocese of New
Orleans, “this Court . . . [is] empowered to take judicial notice of government websites.” 24-
0008, p. 10 (La. App. 4 Cir. 8/20/24), 401 So.3d 769, 778 (citing Breston v. DH Catering, LLC,
23-0460, p. 25, n.2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/5/24), 384 So.3d 953, 968.

8

* * *
(B)(1)(a)(i) Property owned by a nonprofit corporation or association
organized and operated exclusively for religious, dedicated places of
burial, charitable, health, welfare, fraternal, or educational purposes,
no part of the net earnings of which inure to the benefit of any private
shareholder or member thereof and which is declared to be exempt
from federal or state income tax; and
* * *
None of the property listed in Paragraph (B) shall be exempt if owned,
operated, leased, or used for commercial purposes unrelated to the
exempt purposes of the corporation or association.[8]

In Johnson, a real estate holding company for a foundation purchased a 10-

story building for the purpose of providing virtually free office space to local

charities, charging those charities only one dollar per year. Both the holding

company and foundation were designated as charitable organizations pursuant to

Internal Revenue Code §§ 501(c)(2) and (3), respectively. The holding company

also rented space to four commercial businesses—a restaurant, an architectural

firm, a dentist’s office and a barber shop. After the assessor sent a tax bill levied

against the whole property, the holding company paid under protest and appealed

to the Orleans Parish Board of Review (“OPBR”). The OPBR ruled in the holding

company’s favor, finding that it was entitled to a partial exemption for the portion

of the building occupied by the local charities. The record revealed that 41.7% of

the building was in use by the local charities, while the majority of the building

8 Although no substantive changes were made, this section was amended by Acts 2023, No. 48, §

1, with an effective date of November 20, 2023, and now provides in its current form:

(B)(1)(a)(i) Property owned by a nonprofit corporation or association organized
and operated exclusively for religious, dedicated places of burial, charitable,
health, welfare, fraternal, or educational purposes, no part of the net earnings of
which inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or member thereof and that
is declared to be exempt from federal or state income tax; and
* * *
(4)(a) None of the property listed in this Paragraph shall be exempt if owned,
operated, leased, or used for commercial purposes unrelated to the exempt
purposes of the corporation or association.

9

was rented to the commercial businesses. After reviewing Hotel Dieu9 and the

1973 Convention transcripts, the First Circuit Court of Appeal espoused its

interpretation that “the drafters believed that if for any reason the exemption was

found not to apply, it was not to apply to the property in its entirety, not

proportionately.” Johnson, 00-2772 at p. 7, 812 So.2d at 745. However, in its

final disposition the appellate court simply offered that “we conclude that a partial

exemption from ad valorem taxation, applied proportionately, is not provided for

by La. Const. Art. VII § 21(B).” Id.

We previously noted that La. R.S. 33:2828 was enacted in 2005—more than

three years after the Johnson decision and well over twenty years after the Hotel

Dieu decisions. As the First Circuit later recognized in Brindisi v. Bd. Of Trustees

of La. Dist. Attorneys Ret. Sys., “[i]t is presumed that the legislature enacts each

statute with deliberation and with full knowledge of all existing laws on the same

subject.” 14-1167, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 4/24/15), 170 So.3d 1010, 1013. “Thus,

legislative language will be interpreted on the assumption that the legislature was

aware of existing statutes, rules of construction, and judicial decisions interpreting

those statutes.” Id. at pp. 4-5, 170 So.3d at 1013. “It is equally well settled under

our rules of statutory construction, where it is possible, courts have a duty in the

interpretation of a statute to adopt a construction which harmonizes and reconciles

it with other provisions dealing with the same subject matter.” In re Edward

Wisner Donation, 14-0027, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/18/14), 150 So.3d 391, 398.

Mindful of those precepts, this Court has consistently recited that “[t]he

starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute

9 We find Hotel Dieu to be inapposite to the factual considerations now before us; accordingly,

we pretermit discussion of that case in this opinion.

10

itself.” IPF22, LLC v. Sholes, 24-0552, p. 11 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/3/25), 421 So.3d

89, 98 (quoting Sebble on Behalf of Estate of Brown v. St. Luke's #2, LLC, 22-

0620, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/6/23), 358 So.3d 1030, 1034). “When a law is clear

and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law

shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of

the intent of the legislature.” La. C.C. art. 9. We find that where La. R.S.

33:2828(D) provided that “[e]ach assessor10 shall evaluate and grant or deny the

request for tax exemption, or grant a partial tax exemption based on the assessed

value of that proportion of the property not being used for an exempt purpose,” this

directive was both clear and unambiguous. Furthermore, “because it is presumed

that the legislature acts within its constitutional authority in enacting legislation,

this court must construe a statute so as to preserve its constitutionality when it is

reasonable to do so.” State ex rel. Calwell v. Molina Healthcare, Inc, 18-1768, p.

10 (La. 5/8/19), 283 So.3d 472, 479 (citation omitted).

The Assessor offers two cases for the dual propositions that: (1) “the

constitution is the supreme law of this state, to which all legislative acts must yield

. . . . When a statute conflicts with a constitutional provision, the statute must fall.”

City of New Orleans v. La. Assessors’ Ret. & Relief Fund, 05-2548, pp. 12-13 (La.

10/1/07), 986 So.2d 1, 13; and (2) “[t]he unconstitutionality of one portion of a

statute does not necessarily render the entire statute unenforceable. If the

remaining portion of the statute is severable from the offending portion, this court

may strike only the offending portion and leave the remainder intact.” State v.
10 At the time La. R.S. 33:2828 was passed into law, Orleans Parish had seven tax assessors.

This was later consolidated into a single assessor in 2011.
See https://www.nolaassessor.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/80/2023/01/New-Orleans-
Assessor.pdf#:~:text=professional%20training%20consistent%20with%20industry%20standards
;%20thus%20our%20office%20boasts…&text=In%202011%2C%20the%20voters%20of%20Or
leans%20Parish,first%20time%20in%20more%20than%20150%20years.

11

Azar, 539 So.2d 1222, 1226 (La. 1989). Those cases are easily distinuguishable

from the matter before us. In both of the cited cases a constitutional provision was

directly challenged. That is not the case here. “[A]ppellate courts will not

consider issues raised for the first time, which are not pleaded in the court below

and which the district court has not addressed.” Equity Trust Co., FBO 200267986

(59.51%) & 200267988 (40.49%) v. Thorrick, 23-0779, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir.

7/10/24), 399 So.3d 454, 460 (quoting Sunset Harbour, L.L.C. v. Bush, 23-0156, p.

13 (La. App. 4 Cir. 9/26/23), 372 So.3d 855, 863. Moreover, “litigants must raise

constitutional attacks in the [district] court, not the appellate courts, and that the

constitutional challenge must be specifically pleaded and the grounds for the claim

particularized.” Id.

Our research into the legislative history of La. R.S. 33:2828 indicates that it

was introduced for the specific purpose of recouping some ad valorem tax monies

for Orleans Parish. State Senator Ann Duplessis explained to the House

Committee on Municipal, Parochial and Cultural Affairs that there had been a

proliferation of non-profit organizations in the New Orleans area whose properties

were wholly exempt from ad valorem taxation.11 The original bill proposed to

simply levy a small fee on each property owned by those entities, but was later

amended to its final form to provide for partial exemptions. Working from the

presumption that the legislature was aware of the judicial decision in Johnson, we

find that the enactment of La. R.S. 33:2828(D) legislatively overruled that

decision. Moreover, this Court did not locate a single instance in which La. R.S.

33:2828 was challenged by either the Assessor or any of the taxpayers subject to

that statutory scheme in its nearly twenty years of existence prior to its repeal in

11 https://house.louisiana.gov/H_Video/VideoArchivePlayer?v=house/2005/jun/0614_05_MP

12

2024. “It is presumed that public officials have properly performed the duties of

their office unless the contrary can be shown.” City of Kenner v. Dwyer, 464 So.2d

824, 825 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1985) (first citing Vavoline Oil Co. v. Concordia Par.

School Bd., 216 So.2d 702 (La. App. 3rd Cir. 1968); then citing Dubois v. Olympic

Ins. Co., 231 So.2d 714 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1970)). As a result, we presume that the

Assessor was at all times in compliance with La. R.S. 33:2828 for its duration and

had formulated some method by which to accomplish the duty to calculate partial

exemptions. Therefore, we remand the matter to allow the BTA and the Assessor

to adhere to and apply the directives found explicitly in La. R.S. 33:2828(D), in

effect at the time of this litigation, pertaining to partial exemptions.

DECREE

For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the May 12, 2025 judgment rendered

by the Board of Tax Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

JUDGMENT VACATED;
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

13