Honorable Robert S. Calvert Opinion No. ~-376
Comptrollerof Public Accounts
State Capitol Building Re: Effect of the order of
Austin, Texas the Commissioners'Court
of Rardin County,entered
on March 24, 1969, on
valuationson the county
ad valorem tax rolls
which had been finally
approved by the Board
of Equalizationon
Dear Mr. Calvert: January 22, 1969.
You ask our opinion on the following inquiry:
"Please advise me whether the hereinafter
mentioned order of the CommissionersCourt of
Hardin County entered on March 24, 1969, changes 1
the valuations shown on the tax rolls of that
county.
"The facts are 'as.follows:On January-22,.1969,
the CommissionersCourt finally approved all the ads
valorem tax rolls for the county for the year 1968
and delivered them to the county tax collector for
him to use in collecting the taxes shown thereon.
The tax collector has been receiving and receipting
for the taxes shown on these rolls and has remitted
to me the State's portion of his collectionsas
shown by the rolls.
"On March 24, 1969, the CommissionersCourt of
Rardin County entered the following order:
"Upon the motion of Commissioner
Caraway and a second by Commissioner
Burch and by a three to two vote of the'
Court, do hereby settle the dispute
-1858-
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 2 (M-376)
with the taxpayers at 27% and penalty
& Interest, to correct the tax rolls
to reflect the settlementfigure. Any
taxpayer who dates his check by the
31st of March, 1969, will get reoeipt
for same at this rate. The Court
voting as follows:
County Judge Lack voting nay
CommissionerCaraway voting aye
Commissioner Barrington voting nay
CommissionerMeans voting aye
Commissioner Burch voting aye."
'My question to you Is, what effect, if
any, does this order have upon valuations shown
on the tax rolls?"
Our opinion is that the order of the Commlssloners'
Court entered on March 24, 1969, has no effect upon the
valuations shown on the tax rolls of the county, and that as
to those valuations,such order is void and of no effect whatever.
Cur State Supreme Court has, repeatedly and consistently,
held that the decisions of Boards of Equalizationin the matter
of valuationsare quasi-judicialIn nature, and, In the absence
of fraud or illegality,that their decisions are not subject to
aside. State v. Houser, 138 TezC 1928, 156 S.W.2d
Victory v. State, 138 Tex. 285, 158 S.W:2d 760,
Their orders are res adjudicate. State v.~Gouts'
S.W. 281 (Tex.Civ.App.1912, no writ).
In the case of State v. Mallet Land & Cattle Co.,
126 Tex. 392, 88 S.W.2d 471, 472 (19351, the Court safd,
11
The rule has been repeatedly
. . .
announced that, in the absence of fraud
or Illegality,the action of a board of
equalizationupon a particular assess-
ment is final; and, furthermore,that
such valuation will not be set aside
merely upon a showing that the same is
in fact excessive. If the Board fairly
and honestly endeavors to fix a fair
and just valuation for taxing purposes,
-1859-
. .
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 3 (M-376)
a mistake on its part, under such
circumstances,is not subject to review
by the Court. . . .‘I
See also State v. Chicago, R. I. 8 0. Ry. Co., 263 S.W..249,
251 (Tex.Comm.App.1924).
In Rowan Drilling Co, v. Sheppard, 126 Tex. 276, 87 S.W.2d
706 (19351, the Court said,
“When we read the various tax
provlsions of our Constitutionsingly,
and in the light of each other, we are
convinced that by necessary implication, ‘:
if not by direct language, it prohibits
more than one valuation of property for
ad valorem&x purposes for the same tax
year. In this connection we oall
attention to the fact that the various
tax provisions of our Constitutionuse
the word “valuation”in the singular.
Also a holding that more than one
valuation can be provided by law for
the same tax year would bring about
Impossible situations in regard to many
tax matters. In this oonnection we call
attention to the fact that section 52 of
article 3, of our Constitutionpermits
bdnds to be issubd by.any cbunty, any
political subdivisionof a county, any
number of adjoining counties, or any
political subdivisionof the state, or
any defined district now or hereafter to
be described and defined within the
state of Texas, etc., for certain purposes
in any amount not to exceed one-fourth of
the assessed valuatton of the real property
in such district or territory. It is clear
to us that this provision of the Constitution
demonstratesa direct constitutionalintent
not to allow more than one valuation. It
undoubtedlydemonstratesa constf;tutional
implicationnot to do so. . . . (at P. 708).,
- 1860 -
., .
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 4 (M-376) '.,
'. ,'
Article 7253, Vernon's Civil Statutes, reads as follows,
"When any tax collector shall have
received the assessment rolls or books of
the county, he shall receipt to the
commissionerscourt for the same; and
said rolls or books shall be full and
sufficientauthority for said ~collector
to receive and oollect the taxes therein.
levied."
Further, Article 7254 of these statutes, in Its relevant
portion, reads as follows,
"The tax collector shall be the
receiver and collector of all taxes
assessed upon the tax list In his county,
whether assessed for the state or county,
school, poor house or other purposes;
and he shall proceed toncollect the same
according to law, . . .
The Tax Collector has been regularly receiving and
reoeiptlng for the taxes shown on the tax rolls, as you have
stated, since about January 29, 1969. Dcth he and all persons
who have paid their taxes have relied upon these rolls and
acted pursuant to them. In this respect the case of South
Taylor County Independent School Dist. v. Winters Ind-ent
Rchool Dist 151 T 330 49 S W d 1010 1012 (1952) i
relevant. %e opin"i% of ;hz Att&r$y GeneGal Number O-93:
(1939) is also relevant and in accord with our views.
This opinion does not purport to deny the general
authority of CommissionersI Courts to declare certain assess-
ments invalid pursuant to Articles 7346 and 7347, Vernon's
Civil Statutes. This opinion is founded strictly upon the
partioular facts stated in your opinion request and upon the
particular order of the CommissionersI Court here in question.
SUMMARY
The order of the Commissioners'
Court of Hardin County, Texas, entered
on March 24, 1969, wherein it attempts
to change the valuations shown on the
-1861-
. -
Honorable Robert S. Calvert, Page 5 (M-376 )
tax rolls of the county whloh had
been finally approved on January 22, 1969
by the Court, has no effect upon the
valuations shown on those tax rolls.
VezQtruly yoyrs,
$$2Lgkcg&G
tto ey G&era1 of Texas
Prepared by W. E. Allen
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Kerns B. Taylor, Chairman
George Kelton, Vice-Chairman
Jack Goodman
JoIopj$EGsSharpley
Fisher Tyler
W. V. Geppert
Staff Legal Assistant
Hawthorne Phillips
Executive Assistant
-1862-
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion