Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Hon..Robert 5. Calvert Comptroller of Public Accounts Opinion No. 9-175 Capitol Station Austin, Texae Re: Collection of certain judgmenta for dellr? Dear Mr. Calvert: quent taxee. You request the opinion of this office upon the statement of facts which you preBented in your letter. We summarize the pertinent facts at3 follows. Suite for delinquent taxes, penalties and lntersast were filed In the Dletrlct Court of Ward County In caueea numbered 7272-T and 7275-T, respectively, on valid aeaesa- ments. The validity of the rsrreeements1s not questioned. These suits were filed and prosecuted by the attorney under hiB contract with Ward County for the collection of delln- quent taxes. In each case the court found the adjudged value of the property a8 provided In Be&ion 5 of Article 7345b, Vernon's Civil Statutea. The delinquent taxes were calou- lated upon thle ad&aged value, and judgment was rendered for the taxes aa calculated upon the adjudged value. The adjudg- ed value was leae than the aeeeeaed value at the time the delinquent taxes were levied, and const3quentlyeach judg- ment is lees than It would have been if it had been baaed on the taxea levied on the aesessed value. It now appears that-the defendants in the delln- quent suits deelre to pay the amounts of the judgments tax and costo, and by this meana pay the taxes and extlngulah the constitutional llena provided for securing the payment Of the taxes. The question which you preeent for our decision may be thus stated: May the delinquent talpayer, the de- fendant agalnet whom the judgment is rendered, pay the amount, of taxes adjudged owing aa calculated upon the adjudged value and thus satisfy the requirement6 of the law 8,sto the payment of his taxes? The answer to this question Is In the nege- tlve. Hon. Robert 8. Calvert, page 2 (Oplnton No. g-175) We think there is no question but what a delinqu- ent taxpayer against whom judgment haa been rendered fop the full amount of taxes, penalties, lntereat and costs has the right prior to a sale to pay the taxes, penalties, interest and costs and thus satisfy the judgment and extinguish the State's lien for the payment of the taxes. The provlaion of the statute permitting the court to find the adjudged value of the land at the time of the trial has no effect wh8tsoever to reduce the assessment and the amount of taxes, penalties and interest owing by the delinquent taxpayer upon his asaesamenf.~ In a delinquent tax suit judgment should be rendered by the court for the full amount of unpaid taxes, penaltlea and interest upon the assessment. If an adjudged value ia found by the court, this merely operates to permit a sale of the property for a aum less than the amount of taxes, penalties and lnterest,:and which has the effect of extinguishing the lien. But this.does not operate to pay the taxes assessed ,agalnstthe delinquent 3axpayer. The court said In Watts v. City of El Paso, 183 S.W. 2d 249 (Tex. Clv. App. 1944, error ref.): ,1 . . . Even though the property be struck off to the owner or to a party other than a taxing unit for the adjudged value, this does~~-~. no.t Day the taxes. It discharges the taxes as a lien against the particular property. ... "The Dumose of the ad.ludnedvalue Dro- vision of the-law Is not for tEe benefit-of the delinquent taxpayer, ,it 5.sto enable the taxing units to apply the full dalue of the property to their cialms without *he necessity-of further adminiiitratlonthereof...." (Emphasis / supplied.) Section 5 of Article 7345b, V.C.S., merely pro- vides that the court "shall incorporate In its judgment a finding of the reasonable fair value thereof, 3n bulk or in parcels, either or both, as the Court may deem proper," but it is,quite obvlous.that It was not the intent of the Legls- lature to substitute the adjudged value for the assessed value upon which the tax Is calculated. The judgment,should still be for the aggregate amount of the taxes, penalties, Interest and costs upon the assessed valuation. What the court has done in the 'judgmentshere in- volved is to substltu$e the adjudged value for the assessed value. This is a nullity for the reason that the Dlstrlct Court has no. power or jurisdiction to substitute any'value HQn. Robert 9’.Calv+rt, page 3 (OpQhn No. #-l75) for the aaeessed value. This 1.smade quite plain in the case of State v. n 126 Tei. 11, 84,8.W.2d 1076 (1935), in the Pollowlng la;guage; "The,real question for decision here 1s this, Was, the district court In this prooeed- lng authorlzed to revalue and rea88ems’the property on the findings‘made by the jury and award ~judgmentfor tares with interest on ac- count of dellnpuency? It ia our opifiionthat of equalizat,lonis unqtiestlonablyexC5uaive. State v. CNcago R. I., etc. A. Co. (Tex,.,Com. App.) 263 S.W. 249.“(Emphasis supplied) The court kid In ylontaomeryCounty v. Humble Oil and’~ReflnlnaComnany 245 #..w.2d326 (Tex. Clv. App. 1951 error ref. n.r,e,) chat in a suit for taxes the dourt may not substitute Its flnkngs of valuation of property for the find- lngs of the Board of Equalkzatlon and render judgment for taxa- tion ourDoses based uoon the court’s Valuation. To the same ent School District v. W T Waaaoner a 2 b45 (19431 At3 ie iave ,.‘, :. ug!id dyalueis not’to be substltut- ed for the valid kessed- value. Therefore, these judgments of the court based upon the adjudged value and:not the aaaesaed value have no legal effect’. Moreover, if this course should be pursued, it would result in inequality and~diacrlmfnation ag,alnEt other taxpayera who paid their taxes upon the aseesaed value a8 distinguished from the adjudged value. The delinquent taxpayer, as is the case here, de- eclrlngto pay the taxeer,penalties, lntereat and costs prior to a sale is required to pay the amount of the taxes, penal- ties, interest and costs for rhlch the court should have rendered judgment upon the asaeased value. The Tax Assessor- Collector would ,not be authorized under the law to accept anything less In satisfaction of the delinquent taxes, penal- ties, interest and costs due upon the aeseseed value. . - Hon. Robert 9. Calvert, page 4 (Opinion No. S-175) The District Court in a delinquent tax suit has no authority or jurisdiction to sub,etitutethe adjudged value of the property ascertained at the date of the trial as provided by Section 5 of Article 7345b, P.C.B., for the aBBeS8ed Value. A judgment for the taxes rendered upon the adjudged value, as distinguished from the asaesaed value, Is a nullity. The delinquent taxpayer and defendant in the suit may not, therefore, discharge his taxes, penalties, interest and coats by paying prior to sale the taxes,'penal- ties, interest and costs calculated upon the adjudged value. The Tax Assessor-Collector is not authorized to accept'any- thing less than the full .&ount of the taxes, penalties, interest and coats calcula't,edupon the assessed val.uefrom the defendant who desires to pay his taxes and discharge the lien prior to sale. APPROVED : Yours very truly, ~JORNBEN SHEPPERD L. P. Lollar Attorney Qeneral Taxation Division Mary K. Wall Reviewer By -@$yJ-J L. . Lollar Assistant John Davenport Reviewer John Atchison Acting First Assistant John Den Shepperd Attorney General