T~CATTQRNEYGENERAL
OF TEXAS
AuwrIN 11. -rExAs
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGENERAL
July 25. 1949
Hon. L. A. Woods Opinion No. V-862.
State Superintendent
Department of Education Rt: The authority of a school
Austin, Texas district to sue to collect
personal property taxes on
automobiles and related
questions.
Dear Dr. Woods:
Your opinion request submitted at the request of the
officials of a school district is as follows:
‘1. Referring to Article 7297, it states that a
school district has no authority to file suit for taxes
on ‘unrtndtred’ personal property unless the amount
of @t tax is in excess of twenty-five dollars.
“We have a condition in our district wherein the
owners of several thousand automobiles refuse to rtn-
dtr them to tht~ tax assessor as the idea has gottena-
round that since small items of personal property tax
cannot be sued on, the owners of the automobiles re-
fuse to render the property and therefore evade the tax.
Our School Board has put pressure on owners of these
unrendtrtd automobiles and with the cooperationof the
school tax collector we have indicated to these owners
if the taxes art not paid that suit will be filed.
“If the above article refers to this typeof ptr-
sonal property tax as not being subject to suit, we of
course do not wish to threaten suit and then not be able
to back:it up. In fact, Board members have the feeling
that if we have no better law to enforce the collection
of this tax, it would be a better policy to leave these
unrendtrtd automobiles. as well aa the other agtomo-
bilts, off the tax roll entirely. We come to this line of
thinking for the reason that people who do render their
automobiles and pay taxes on them art being discrim-
inated against, when about forty per cent of the taxpay-
ers refuse to render their automobiles and get by with
it because we have no law to enforce collection.
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 2 (V-862)
“Another point in connection with this, would the
school board be showing discrimination in the asstss-
mtnt of taxes on automobiles by making sixty per cent
pay and letting forty per cent go tax free?
‘2. Another practice which has been followed
in our tax offices in the past has been to drop automo-
biles from the tax roll when they become five years
old. Would our tax assessor be justified under the law
in dropping automobiles from the tax roll at any given
period. so long as the automobile has value?
‘3. Is there any law which allows a man and his
family one automobile for transportation to be exempted
from taxes under the old law that a man and his family
were entitled to a wagon and team exempt from taxes? ”
Article 7297, V. C. S.. applies only to State and County
taxes, and not to school districts, as your request implies.
Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution of this State,
provides in part as follows:
‘All property in this state . . . other than munic-
ipal, shall be taxed . . . in proportion to its value. *
Section 2 of Article VIII of the Constitution declares that the Ltgis-
laturt may exempt from taxation certain specified property, and
declares further that ‘all laws exempting property from taxation
other than the property above mentioned shall be null and void.”
Automobiles art not listed in the' Constitution as an item of proptr-
ty which the Legislature is authorized to exempt from taxation.
Therefore automobiles are taxable in the same manner and to the
same extent as other personal property subject to the jurisdiction
of school districts.
School districts have no inherent power to tax as dots
the State. but the Constitution and statutes have conferred upon them
the powtr,to levy ad valorem taxes to support the schools tstab-
lished and maintained therein. Crabb v. Ctlestt Independent School
District, ,105 Ttx. 194. 146 S,W.-fzBT1912) BI tw1tt Megargel C.
L.1 District, 285 SW. 271 (Comm. ALP. ~~L@J).~‘N0 useful pur-
post wilTIt served to discuss these constitutional and statutory
provisions in detail. It is oufficient to say that all property, real
and personal, not otherwise exempt, is subject to ad valortm taxes
by school districts as to such property as is located within the con-
fines of such a district. This, of course, includes automobiles.
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 3 (V-862)
Article 7147, V. C. S., defines personal property for the
purpose of taxation. It provides in part as follows:
‘Personal property for the purpose of taxation
shall include all goods, chattels and effects . . .”
Wtbater defines a chattel as “any item of movable or immovable
property not real estate. * An automobile falls in this classification.
Moreover, any doubt as to the legislative intent is removed by Arti-
cle 7162, V. C. S., which indicates the ptrsonalty which shall be
listed or rendered by taxpayers for taxation. This article requires
that the following items, among others, with their respective values,
must be listed:
‘Number of carriages, buggies, wagons, automo-
biles, bicycles, motorcycles, or other vthiclts~t-
mr kind.”
Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides:
“Taxation shall be equal and uniform.”
It would be a violation of this constitutional provision if sixty per
cent of the automobiles and their owners were assessed for taxes
by a school district, and the remaining forty per cent were arbitrar-
ily and intentionally not assessed at all. This procedure would be
neither equal nor uniform. Our Supreme Court has laid down the
rule that ‘equality of taxation necessarily depends upon uniformity
of assessment.” Livtlyv. Missouri Q K. T. Ry. Co., 102 Tex. 545,
120 S.W. 852 (1909). Such a procedure would be discriminatory.
In answer to your question
No. 2, you art advised that
there is nothing in the statutes to support
the arbitrary dropping of
automobiles from the tax rolls at any age of such car. Automobiles.
as other property, are to be taxed according to their value. Age, of
course, would be a factor in determining such value. Article 7174,
V. C. 5.. provides:
‘Personal property of every description shall be
valued at its true and full value in money.”
In answer to your question No. 3. you are advised as
first stated that there is no law in this State exempting automobilea
from taxation. One automobile is exempt to the family under Arti-
cle 3832, V. C. S., from forced salt, that is, from execution in sat-
isfaction of debts; but this exemption has no reference to taxation.
This rtatute specifically refers to carriages. Our courts, however,
have held that an automobile is a carriage within the meaning of
this statute, Willis v. Shoelman, 206 S.W.2d 283 (Tex. Civ. App. 1947).
. .- .
Hon. L. A. Woods, Page 4 (V-862)
SUMMARY
Automobilts.art subject to ad valortm taxation
by school districts as any other item of personal prop-
erty. The taxing officials of school districts have no
authority to assess sixty or any other percentage of the
owners of automobiles, and purposely relieve others of
assessment. All automobiles that have a value art sub-
ject to ad valorem taxation by school districts. There
is no statute exempting family automobiles from taxa-
tion. Arts. 3832, 7147, 7162, 7297, 7298, V. C. S.; Ttx.
Const. Art. III, Sec. 55; Art. VIII, +zcs. 1, 2; Crabb v.
Ctlestt Independent School District, 105 Tex. 194, 146
m 520 (I9 ) Bltwitt v. Megargtl C. L. School Dis-
tric; 285 S.W. 571 (Comm. App. 1926)’ Lively v. Mis-
ii& & K. T. Ry. Co., 102 Ttx. 545, li0S W 852 (-l9’09);
wl?ns v. Shotlman. 236 S.W.2d 283 (Ttx. &ii. App. 1947).
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY GENERALOFTEKAS
L. P. Lollar
Assistant
:
LPL/mwb
FIRST ASSISTANT
ATTORNEYGENERAL