Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN iiororsblo T. 2. IYimbla First ,safstant State superintendent State ;)epartmeiztof L&cation &astir, Texar Dear Sir: cpinioc Lo. O-b@3 .ie : Ghether imoz~e from of aallche fro5 scho shall be plao able sohool F . jwrnentschool 5, asking us~to d In 2s. :A 5. &ilert's letter 0 secure 60 iron, the Attorney ) ..am!lbl@on county in Tom Greene county. hree years, t&e Cpmroie- lche iron the same area- of the calicha was place& in und and apportioned to the to the school districts. 'r!e feel tmt the caliche would COiW FG tLe s6m6 oategory 88 gravel or top aoil and that we are Justified ~JZplacing the in- some from the sale of caliohe 3.~the nvaflabla Sahool Fund and apportioning it to the school dia- tricts. secondly, la publlo school land subject t0 taxation, an(lif so what sorttof taxatior is it subJect to:" Yonorsble T. :;.TrFclble, page 2 .3elatlveto your first .&ueatior, qe quote frostthis de- partqent% Opinion Xo. O-4651: "You do not infom us in your telegrainwhether the sale or tne grevel and oaliohs will oonstituts a sale 0r real property or OS persohsl property. Of ooursc, this would be gov~med bg'tbe type of oontract,.conveyanceor deed given by the county. tierespaotrullyaall your attention to the aass of Dreeben v. Witehurst '68 53;3. (26) 1025 (Texss Cosvnissionof ADpealsf &5 S.~Vi.(26) 705 (Dallas Court or civil Appealsis whiah 'oonstrueda orrtsin convoysnos to 70,000 cubio yards of gravel to bs a convsyaucs or psrsohal property rather then or real property. This case aontaius an excellent discussion of the distinotion between oonveyanaes as constitutingreal or lmreonal pr0perty.v If the sale of the oaliche constitutes a sale of psrsosal property, then the incoma Iron:the.sale my be plaoed in ti:o Available Sahool r'und. Your sacond question is as roif0ws: nSaco~dly, 1s pub110 sohool lend uubjeot to taxation, and if so what sort of taxation is it subjeot to';'" Section 66 of Article 7 or the State Coiiatitution provides as follows: "All a~iculture or grazihg school land men-.,. tioned Ln-seatior6 of this artiole omed by any county shall be subjeot to taxetion except for State puqoses to the sallieextent as la&s privately owned;n section 6 referred to in jectlor 68 relates to lands sran;;~ by the &tats to the several oounties for sduoational purposes. do not spscifiosllyask if osrtaln g.overnmsntal a&onoias heving taxlEg authority caILlevy and colleot taxes on suoh sohool la&do. Ths btate oamot levy ahd oolleot taxes oh said lands and tide Department, ti ODihion iio.G-442, held tnat oountlas were not liable to the state tor their part of ths gross produotion tax on Oil. . ._I I_ - Honorable T. 2. Trimbla, page 3 The Courts of this State,have held that said lands are aubjbct to taxation by the counties and school districts in which the land is looated. Chlldresa County v. Gtate, 92 ii. 5:. (2d) Ull; Childress County v . LlortohIhdeDendent Sohool Dletrlct, 95 S. X. (26) 1.041. It 1s the opinion of this Departmxt th6t landa, classlfled a8 serioultursl or erazihg lands, gasted by the State to couuties Car eduaational purposes under the srovi- sions or Article 7, ;ieotlon6 or the State Constitution are liable rOr taxes by all &overnmental a(;enclasauthorized to levy and oollect taxes, exoept taxes leviedqlor State purposes. . /a/ BY By Bi7B Chairman