. .
~TEEATTORNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
Honorable J. W. Edgar Opinion No. (C- 457)
Commlssloner
Texas Education Agency Re: Whether a consolidated
201 East 11th Street independent school
Austin, Texas district may use the
tax assessments of the
independent school /
district which ie con-
solidated into it for
purposes of asseselng
taxes for the consolidated
district, when the district
included has not levied any
tax pursuant to its asses-
Dear Mr. Edgar: sment 8 D
You ask our opinion in answer to two questions re-
lating to assessment for ad valorem taxes of property
within a former independent school district which has
been consolidated with another Independent school district
under Article 2806, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Your questions
and our answers are:
Question 1:
“Should orlegally may the San Marco8
Condolidated Independent School District’s
tax office accept or use the Martindale
di.strict tax renditions and tax valuations.
for 1965 as recited assessed prior to May
22, 1965; or
Our Answer: No.
Question 2:
“Legally should the said consolidated
district also assess or re-assess the former
-2172-
Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 2 Opinion No. (C-457)
Martindale district taxable property this
year -- such assessed valuations, to be pre-
sented to Us board of equalization as asses-
sed valuations of other taxable properties
within the consolidated district?
Our Answer: Yes.
FACTS
The necessary facts for consideration are as follows.
On May 22, 1965, the, San Marco8 Independent S~chool District
inHays County and the Martindale Independent School District
of Caldwell County vote&under Article 2806 to. consolidate.
We assume as correct your statements that the consolidation
was legal in all respects and that the new:consolidated district
shortly will ,vote a maintenance tax and bond assumption which
also will be legal.
The San Marcos.district has its own tax assessor and
collector. ~The Martindale district assessed its’own taxes,
having its own assessor and it used the County Tax Assessor-
Collector for the collection thereof as authorized by Article
2792, Vernon’s Civil Statutes.
For example, in 1964, ‘the taxpayers would timely render
their property for county-state and school taxes to the
County Tax Assessor-Collector. The Martindale assessor would
get his information as to such renditions from the County Tax
Assessor-Collector’s office; he would then make an assessment
for the .school taxes by applying an “across-the-board’!per-
centage increase,prepare his tax rolls about July showing
such determined valuations and forward same to the County Tax
Assessor-Collector for collection. Across the top of the tax
roll, the district assessor would indicate that the tax rate
of the district was $1.50,,and the taxes would be collected
based on the tax rolls so submitted by applying the $1.50 rate.
As of May 22, 1965, (when consolidation was voted)~ the
Martindale renditions in 1965 followed the practice recited
above. The Assessor has not. submitted his assessments for I
action by a board of equalization and has not prepared the
1965 tax rolls; nor had the Board of Trustees of the former
Martindale district prior tomsaid May 22 levied a 1965 school
tax.
-il73-
.
Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 3 Opinion No. (C-457)
The San Marco8 Independent School District has assessed
all taxable properties within its former district and the
consolidated district's equalization board has been appointed
to begin its work thereon In the Immediate future.
OUR OPINION
We do not consider any aspect of delinquent taxes in
the Martindale district, nor do we consider any aspect of
either the maintenance tax or the bond assumption tax as
applied to that District excepting only as to certain pro-
cedures relative to their assessment necessary to answer
your questions. We discuss your two questions ,together.
The nature of the power of an independent school district
to tax is stated in Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School
Dist., Ego S.W. 1083 (c A 1927) in the court stated
xreference to the tzzngPiiwer of %z?efendant independent
school district:
"It Is elementary that corporations such
as defendant in error are special creatures of
the statute and have such powers only as are
specially given or are implied as a necessary
incident to those expressly conferred. Such
districts have no inherent power to tax the
citizen. Such power is conferred by the statute,
and, being a special grant of authority, the
power must be exercised in strict conformity with
the mandatory direction of the Legislature. No-
where is this principal more rigidly adhered to
than in the matter of taxation. . . ." (at p. 1084)
Articles 2791 and 2792 of Vernon's Civil Statutes govern
the assessment and collection of taxes by both the original
San Marco8 and Martindale school districts and by the newly
consolidated district. Neither of these statutes, either
explicitely or implicltely, authorize the new district to
accept or use the Martindale district's renditions and
tax valuations for 1965 in assessing any taxes it may assess
and levy. We might conclude our opinion at this point; .but
we will add the following in further support of our holdings.
-2B74-
.
Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 4 Opinion No. (C-457)
Your recitation of facts submitted to us states that the
Boardiof Trustees of the former Martindale district prior to
the date of the election on -cay 22, 1965, at which consolidation
was effected had not levied a 1965 school tax. Taxes do not
accrue against property until after there has been both an
assessment and levy. Attorney General Opinion V-93 (1949).
Because no such tax had been levied the Board of Trustees of
the former Martindale district may not now make any levy of
any tax; the taxing power over th.e entire new consolidated
district has passed into the exclusive hands of the new
district, to be exercised by that District in conforndty to
Article 2791, 2792 and other relevant provisions of our
Civil Statutes. Geffert,,v. Yorktown Indeeendent School Dlst.,
supra; Yorktown Independent School Di 8ti . v. Afferbach, 12 B.li.2d
e Ind. Sch.
l
A valid assessment of property is an indlepens&ble pre-
requleite to the validity of a tax, and involves the preparation
of a list of t)le property subject to assessment and taxation.
White v. NcGlll, 109 S.W.2d 110
ther grounds, 131 Tax. 231, 112
Assessment of taxes involves more
it requires the exer~clee of the’ discretion of th eleeessor.
Electra Independent School Dist. v. Waggoner Letate. 140 Tex.
U3 1bU S W 2d b4> b>Z (1943) . 8 111van ‘v. Bitter, 113 S.W.
193’ (Tax .&v :App . 1408) . S.ee A&&es 1044 d 73% VelllOn’e
Civil Statutes, relating to aesessment of tk by ~ltlSS,
as reterenced in Articles 2791 and 2792.
Section 1 of Article VIII of our Constitution requires
that ad .valorem taxes throughout the new district be SqUal
and uniform. This Section 1 in Its pertinent portion reads
as follows :
“Taxation shall be equal and uniform. All
property in this State, whether owned by natura?
persons or corporations, other then rvniCipa1,
-21757::.,.
Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 5 Opinion No. (C-457)
shall be ,taxedIn proportion to its value,
which shall be ascertainedas may be pro-
vided by law. s -"
If ,theSan Marcos ConsolidatedIndependentSchool
Districtts tax office accepts and uses the prior Martindale
tax assessmentsand tax valuations for the year 1965,
taxation of the property within the consolidateddistrict
would not be "equal and uniform." See Mullins v. Colfax
ConsolidatedSchool Dist., supra; Weatherly IndependenT
School Dist. v. Hughes, 41 S.W,2d 445 (Tex.Civ.App.1951).
SUMMARY
_------
The San Marco8 ConsolidatedIndependent
School District may not use the tax assessments
of the Martindale IndependentSchool District
but must assess all property throughoutthe
consolidateddistrict a,t an equal and uniform
rate.
Very truly yours,
WAGGONER
CARR
Attorney General of Texas
By:
Assistant Attorney General
WEA:sJl
APPROVED.:
OPINION COMMITTEE:
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
John F, P&tit
J. Ho Broadhurst
Gordon C. Cass .
John Banks
APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: T. B, Wright