residents of the Depot. Nor are the District and taxing entities attempting to assess taxes on property within the federal enclave that constitutes the Depot. Those aspects of a “state” within the federal system of these United States are not implicated. The tax is assessed solely on inventory while it is located on Aviall’s private property at its distribution center in Irving, Texas. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. §§ 11.01, 23.01, 32.01 (Vernon 2008). Moreover, Aviall’s interpretation would reverse the long-standing rule to strictly construe tax exemptions against the taxpayer. See River Oaks Garden Club v. City of Houston, 370 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tex.1963); ICAN Enter., Inc. v. Williamson County Appraisal Dist., No. 03-06-00594, 2009 WL 1025084, *3 (Tex.App.Austin April 17, 2009, pet. denied) (<HOLDING>). It is well settled that language granting
holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient holding trial court properly gave narrow interpretation for exemption for stored aircraft parts denying taxpayers application for its storage of entire aircraft holding that before denying petition trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing and state specific reasons for denying the petition holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form