Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

w 18, 1970 Mr. S. .X Snedeker @d.nion No. Y- 632 Assistant District Attorney - Cameron county Re: Ad valorem taxation Brownsville, Texas 78520 of cottonseed In the physical possesrlon of Valley Co-Op Oil Mill, a co-operative Dear Mr. Snedeker : marketing association. _ _opinion You recently, requee ted an . . of _this - office as to whether or not cottonseed ln tne pnyrlcal posseselm on January 1st of Valley Co-Op Oil Mill, a non-profit co-operative marketing association, was subject to ad valorem taxation based on the following facts: The Valley Co-Op 011 Mill Is a co-operative market- ing association Incorporated under the provlrlons of Chapter 8, Title 93, Artlcler 5737-5764, Venmnqr Civil Statutes. Only Co-operative Grower Associations incorporated under the 8-e provisions as The Valley Co-Op 011 llill, supra, are eligible for membership In The Valley Co+ Oil Mill. There are twenty-two of such organizations which make up the membership of’valley Co-Op 011 will. These members are all cotton gins. Each of the twenty-two member glno have menbsrs who are individual cotton farmers. They bring their cotton to the Gin for processing. The Gin separates the seed from the zotton, and because of lack of storage space and other equipment, It hauls It direct to Valley Co-Op 05.1 Nil1 for processing into cottonored oil, lintera and hulls. When the @In receives the cotton from the farmer, It gives him a ticket showing what It owes him lees the ginning cost. If this latbr is proved to be In error, it is adjusted. Likewise, when the Gin delivers the seed to Valley Co-Op 011 Mill, it Is given a ticket showing what was received and Its value. This is entered as a credit on the books of the Oil Mill, or, If the Gin demands It, the Oil Mill will pay them by check the same or the next day. -3024- Mr. S.R. Snedeker, page 2 (H- 632) Valley Co&p 011 Mill processce all of the s8ed into cottonseed oil and other by-products and 60114 them on the competitive market. It handles no cottonseed except that brought in by Its twenty two Co-Op Gin members s The charter of Valley Co-Op provides that only Co-Op Grower Associationa incorporated under the Cooperative Marketing Act of the Sthte of Texas in operating Qlne for the benefit of their members shall be eligible for membership in Valley Co-Op Oil Mill. Periodically, Valley Co-Op Oil Mill audits its finances and return8 any accumulated aurplue funds it may have to its twenty-two membdr Gina, which in turn, do the same thing with their individual farmer nember6. Both the Co-Op Qine and Valley Co-Op 011 Mill are non-profit organizationr. The City of Harlingen claims certain ad valorem taxes to ,be due on cottonsadd ln,the physical possersion of Valley Co-Op 011 Mill on January let, and the Co-Op has refused to pay the tax claiming It to be exempt under Article VIII, Sec. 19, Constitution of Texae as being “farm products In the hands of the producer.” It ie well settled that the term “In the hands of”, a8 used in an exemption etatutc, Is construed more broadly than mere phylrlcal poeaeralon and Includes constructive possession as well; it In the power to demand and receive possesalon from another, including an aglnt. Routledge v. Elmendorf, 116 S.W. 156, (Tax. f it5 “Price v. Socistx, ~&0i?‘3~?~~0=::~ f:g’)h2CAm %. R , 196. Sw v. Warren, 158 Mass.i.1; &uitt v: Arm&% 56 xd? 30b ” See oleo City of bwensboro v. Dark tibacco Groifere Aes’n, 3ab S W 330 (Ky. App. m We do not hesitate to folldr’the consistent rulini of thie Office to the effect that farm pFOdUCtUdellvered by a pFOdUC0r to a third party for storage and ultimate eale are et.111 "in the hands of the producer" when the third party acts as agent and a eale has not been made. Attorney &morale1 inion Nos. O-5091 (1943), V-193 (1947), and V-511 (1 8). The Marketing Assoclatlon’r “Declaration of Policy” Is as follows: Article 5737 provides a4 follows: %I order t0 DFOIZOt8, fo8teF and -3025- I - Mr. S.N. Snedeker, page 3 (M- 632) cooperation and to eIlmlnate speculation end waste; and to make production and distribution of agricultural products di t as can be effectively done bak%hO pFOdUC0F and COliSkllll0Fj and to etabill th od tlon and market- ing probIe:z ofe~flcKural DFOdUCtS. this law la Passed." Acta 1921, p.45; Acts 1943, 48th Leg., p. 601 ch. 346, Section 1. (Emphasis added.) Article VIII, Section 19,Conatltution of Texas, is as follows: "Sec. 19. Of the DFOdUCOF, home and farm use, are exempt from all taxation until 0,tht!FWiSe dlrect’ed by a - third8 vote of all the membera ilect tyboth Houses of the Laglslature. Added 1st Tuesd in Sept., 1879, proclsmatlon Oct. 14, 1 "i; 79.” (Emphaale added.) The purpose clause of Valley Co+ Oil 11111 I.8 stated to be identical with Article 5740, Vernon18 Civil Statutes, which 1s aa follows: "An Association may be OFKanized to engage In MY activity ln connection with th p d ti 1t1 ti d f clt"ru~Og%e?&c~he grkzti? oz% ing of agricultural products and citrus fruits produced by and marketed for It8 m0mb0Fs, or in the harvesting, preserving, drYin& shipping or u manufacturing,, or'marketing of the by-products thereof; OF in cOM0CtiOn with the manufactuF- lng, sailing, or supplying to ita member8 of tW.ZhinOFy, 0qUlpment OF SUpplieS; or in the financing of the above enumerated actlvitiee; OF in any one or more Of the aCtiViti08 specified herein. Provided, however, sny such actlvltles may extend to non-members and to the production, cultivation and care of land8 owned OF cultivated by them @nd their -3026- Mr. S.N. Snedeker, page 4 (M-632) products limited by Article 5738 as heretofore amended. ” (apha.eis added. ) Attorney Qcneral's Oplnlon No. O-5404 (le3) ln- volved the liability for aa valorem taxes on peanuts, which were held and stored by Co-operative Marketing Organizations, incorporated under Articles 5737, et seq. It was there concluded that the peanuts were to be deemed as still "farm products in the hands of the producer" within the meaning of Article VIII, Section 19, Conati- tutlon of Texas, and thus could not be taxed notwlth- standing the fact that legal title thereto was In the corporation rather than in the producer. The Opinion quotes at great length from the case of Texas Certified Cottonseed Breeder's Association v. Aldrldge, 122 T . 61 S W 26 79 ThC t h ld th at even tho$? the'contr& were'couc~ed"~ 1Gguage of "sale and delivery" such was not an "absolute sale". The Court said to so hold wourdeatroy It as a Co-Operati?e Market- ing Association. The Court observed that the me,mbers had constituted the Association as their agent. In the factual situation now pcesanted, the association, as agsnt, has turned over the,physlcal possession of the farm products to the Valley Co-Op Oil Wll, as sub-agent. The mere transfer of physical possession from one agent of the producer to another agent would not destroy the exemption. The producers own the gin and have constl- tuted the oil mill their agent; thus, the cottonseed is still In the hands of the producers. It is the opinion of this office that the Instant case concerning Valley Co-Op 911 Mill Is controlled by Attorney General’s Opinion Ho. O-5404, supra, and the Supreme Court case of Texas Certified Cottonseed Breeder~e Association v. Aldridge, 122 T 4b4 61 S . W 26 nm 3) The cottonseed In the phyaicale&maakn of Galley Co-Op 011 Mill la therefore held to be exempt from payment of ad valorem tax. Cottonseed in the physical possessionof Valley Co-Op 011 Mill, a co-operative market- ing association, incorporated Wider Articles 5737-5764, V.C.S., being “farm products ln the hands of the producer” la exampt from -3027- ^. - Mr. S. N. Snedeker, page 5 (V-632) payment of ad valorem taxes under Article VIII, Sec. 19, Constitution of Texas. General of Texas Prepared by Fisher A. Tyler Assistant Attorney General APPROVED: OPINIOIJCOMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman Bill Allen, Acting Co-Chairman J.W. BFOadhuFSt Ed Esquivel Jack Goodman Robert Flowers MEADEF. GRIFFIN Staff Legal Assistant ALFRED WALKER Executive Aemletant NOti WRITE FiFmt Assistant -3028-