By Lisa Lopata, Esq., Checkpoint News
The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that a university student housing project was not exempt from property tax because it was not used for educational purposes as required by the New Mexico Constitution. The student housing project was built, managed and operated by a real estate investment trust (REIT) that held a leasehold interest in the property under a contract with a New Mexico state university that held a fee simple interest. (American Campus Communities, Inc. v. Bernalillo County Assessor, N.M. Ct. App., Dkt. No. A-1-CA-42053, 11/12/2025.)
Background
At the start of the project, the county assessor notified the REIT the properties that were part of the project were tax exempt because the university owned the improvements. After the project was done, however, the county assessor billed the REIT for eight years of property taxes. Constitution of the State of N.M. Art. VIII § 3 provides that “all property used for educational or charitable purposes [is] exempt from taxation.” Neither the REIT nor the university applied for property tax exemptions, but protested the assessments, claiming the project’s properties were exempt under the state constitution. A lower court affirmed the property tax assessment.
Constitution Property Tax Exemption
The REIT appealed, again claiming the assessments violated the state constitution because the student housing was used for educational purposes. The New Mexico Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case since it involved a significant question of constitutional law and an issue of substantial public interest. The court held that the properties did not qualify for the educational use exemption.
Educational Use Exemption
New Mexico applies a three-part test to determine if the educational use requirement is meant. The use must:
- be direct, immediate, primary, and substantial;
- embrace systematic instruction in any and all branches of learning; and
- impart a substantial public benefit.
First, the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that the immediate, primary, and substantial use of the properties were residential, not educational. Academic activity on the properties was incidental and secondary to its main function of housing university students.
To show that the properties embraced systematic instruction, the REIT relied on an education professor’s affidavit that stated the property promoted education in an “academic homogenous community” unlike off-campus properties. The court of appeals ruled that the argument was too broad and adopting it would reduce the effectiveness of the constitutional property tax exemption.
Finally, the court ruled the properties met the third test of imparting a substantial public benefit because the university’s students received improved, high-quality housing. While the third test was met, the properties failed the first two tests and were not exempt from property tax.
Equitable Estoppel
In addition to its constitutional claim, the REIT argued that the county assessor was estopped from imposing back taxes because the assessor did not notify the REIT it had to apply for the exemption. The court having already held the properties were taxable, noted that the estoppel claim failed because the taxpayer bears the burden of claiming, applying for, and proving a tax exemption, and the REIT did not meet its burden as taxpayer.
Take your tax and accounting research to the next level with Checkpoint Edge and CoCounsel. Get instant access to AI-assisted research, expert-approved answers, and cutting-edge tools like Advisory Maps and State Charts. Try it today and transform the way you work! Subscribe now and discover a smarter way to find answers.
