Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Ronorable Henry Wade opinion HO. ww-887 District Attorney Records Building Re: Authority of counties to Dallas, Texas Impose an occupation tax upon Insurance adjustera, Dear Mr. Wade: and related questlone. Your recent request for an opinion of this office sets forth three questions pertaining to Article 1.09, Title 122A, Taxation-Qeneral, R.C.S. (H.B. 11, 3rd C.S. 56th Leg., hereafter referred to as H.B. 11). ?or clarity we will consider the question8 In order. ”1 * Does Art. 1.09 forbid the lmporltlon by counties of an occupation tax upon Insurance adjusters?” It fa our opinion that Art. 1.09 does forbtd the imposition by counties of an occupation tax upon insulrance adjusters. The Article reads as follows: “MO city, county or other political sub- division may levy an occupation tax levied by thi,e Act unleaa apeclflcally permitted to do 80 by the Legislature of the State of Texas.” Clearly the intent of the Legislature was to prevent cities, counties and other political subdivlelons from taxing any of the occupatioma upon which a State tax Is levied by H.B. 11, unless specific authority to do so, $8 granted. There is an occupation tax levied upon lnsurano’e adjusters by Art, lg.01 of H.B. 11. No authorlty~ t,o make a slmllar levy 1s granted to counties; therefore, they are prohibited from doing 80. “2. what ceunty occupation taxes a30 permitted under Art D l.Og?" As well pointed out In the brief accompanying your request, the enactment of Art, L-09 did not reeolve all confusion which existed in this area, Therefore, we ahall not, in thi8 opinion, attempt to exhauetively analyze the Honorable Henry Wade, Page 2 Opinion No. ww-887 entire field and history of state and local occupation taxes; however, we will be glad to attempt to advise you concerning any specific occupation tax about which you may wish to inquire- In connection therewith, we do point out the following: I. Art 0 VIII Sec. 1, Constitution of Texas, provides as follows: *provided further that the occupation t&‘levied by any county, city or town for any year on persons or corporations pursuing any profession or business, shall not exceed one half of the tax levied by the State for the same period on such profession or business.” Consequently, a political subdivision may not tax an occupation which Is not the subject of a State lev Pierce v. City of Stephenville, 206 S.W.2d 848 (lgti, no writ history) and authorities therein cited. II. Article 7048, R.C.S.,l permits counties to levy up to one-half the State tax on an occupation not specifically exempted. This rule would be Irreconcilable with Art. 1.09, H.B, 11, which prohibits a county from taxing an occupation taxed In II-B, 11 unless specific permission Is given. In one, the absence of prohibition implies consent; in the other, the lack of permission lm- plies prohibition. H.B. 11 did not directly repeal Art. 7048. It did contain a blanket repealer covering “all laws or parts of laws In conflict herewith” (Sec. 7 (b’) ). Therefore, if a conflict did arise between the provisions, Art. 1.09 of R.B, 11 would govern. III * Clearly, as you point out, counties may levy an occupation tax on coin-operated machines Art. 13.14, H.B. 11) and pistol dealers (Art. 19.01 (7f , H;B.ll), 1 “Each commissioners court. s *shall have the right to levy one-half of the occupation tax levied by the State upon all occupations not herein otherwise specifically exempted;. e *’ See State v. Calveston, HI. & S.A. Ry 100 Tex. 15 97 S.W. 71 (1906) revId on other grou%: 28 S.Ct. 63 210 U.S. 217 (1906) . . Ronorable Henry Wade, Page 3 Opinion No. ww-887 because specific permission to do so is granted by those Articles, "3. Is Art. 1.09 constitutional, Insofar as it limits local occupation taxes, since such limitation was not among the functions ,set out in the title to the act, which is now new Title 122-A?” It is our opinion that Art. 1.0 does not violate Art. III, Sec. 35, Constitution of Texas, 8 The caption of R-B. 11 (Title 122A) Is of considerable length; perhaps necessarily so, In view of the purpose and content of the Act. Of consequence here is the portion reading “An Act revising and rearranging certain Statutes of Title 122 *Taxation’ D 0 .; revising Statutes levying. . .mlscellane- ous occupation taxes, . . .‘I Notice is thereby given that Statutes contained in Title 122 will be revised; more par- ticularly, that statutes levying miscellaneous occupation taxes will be revised. It is well settled that this section of the Constitution should be liberally construed. Consolidated Underwriters v. Klrby,Lumber Co., 267Ffiws 703 (T C App. 1924 ; Shannon ;:k pi 2d 810 (1958 . It Is only necessaFjXEat riade notice’ of the subject-matter of an act be stated In the caption. Stone v. Brown, 54 Tex, 330 (1881); Continental Bus System v. Crney, 310 S.W.2d 676 (Tex.Clv.App. 195UJi error ref.). T e caption of H.B. 11, when tested by these rules, is sufficient to embrace the matter treated in Art. 1.09 thereof. SUMMARY . Art. 1.09, Title 122 A, R.C.S. (H-B. 11, 3rd C.S., 56th Leg. ), (a) forbids the 2 “No bill. 0 .shall contain more than one subject, which,,shall be expressed in Its title. . * D . - Honorable Henry Wade, Page 4 Opinion No. WW-887 lmposltlon by counties of an occupation tax upon Insurance adjusters; (b) permits counties to levy occupation taxes upon coin-operated machines and pl?tol deal- ers; (c) is constitutional. Very truly yours, WILL WILSON Attorney General JRI: jlp APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE: W. V. Qeppert, Chairman L. P. Lollar Leon Pesek Arthur Sandlln Iola Wilcox REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNFX GENERAL Bg: Leonard Paasmore