OFFlCE OF THE ATTORNEY QENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Hon. -0. B. Shepprrd
goaptavllet of Pub110 Aooountr
ACUtiB, ?0=8
fear Mr. Sbeppudr
We are in reoei
rhloh you enolosed a le
willlanu, Dlreot
Texas Unemployme
Qepartneent Ir 60
Pub110 Aooounta
to lsoue 8 wexrlat or the mm or $22.00,
under the faetr re lr md that or yr.
aa ofroot?
b350, V. A. 0. S., this departarent mqneet.8 your ruling as
to whether rrrrant should irrue in payment of this benefit
elaia of $22.00.
.
c
$#& Ooo. IL Sheppard, pa&r 2
*The quertlon oi offrrat 18 ralrad in the attaohd
letter iron thr Texa8 Unorrplo~arnt Compeasatlon Oomul8-
8lOU. Thlr deputment .nay not be dlreotly interested.
in the question of offret In thla partloular elalm, but
8infJe the que8tlon arbor in oonneotfon with other olaima
I will thank you to answbr that queetlon aubmltted to
thir 60 lrtment by the Texar Unemployment Compensation
oo~ralao s 0a.e
*In oonneotlon with the attaohed oertlfloatlon for
paraent of benefits to the above olalmant, we wish to
6iv8 you the fo~lowlng raotr 03nrimng our verbal afs-
01.~408 in 70~ 0rri00 4 rbw 64~8 agot
“we hate a Judgment againat thir lndlrldual in thr
amount OS &00.31, plurr aoarued lnterert and penalties.
This amount ootera delinquent oontrlbutlone wbioh ho
owed thir Commirsion in hi6 atatua aa an employor 8ubJeot
to the Texas Uneaployment Oompensation Aot durlag the
year8 1939 and 1940. On February 9, 19b3, this indlridrul
filed an initial olaim for bsneiite whloh 18~ approved
for W0.20.
*Ia rlew of A&661@ 4350, V. R, 0. 8.) reletin& to
the dUtib8 of the OoaptrOll8r, 4d readlng, ‘WO uar3xh8
ahall be irrued t6 say pemon indebted to the State, or
to his agent or wdgaee, until ruoh debt Is paid,’ it
eoourrrd to ua that it wa8 our duty to 0811 thlr matter
to rour attrntlon and let you deolde the question.
*Seotloa 15(o) of the Texar Unemployment Compensation
Aot provider that no assignment, pledge, or enoumbranoe of
any right to benefltr rhall br rali&; that ‘suoh .right8 to
beneritr rhall be exempt troa low, ereoutlon, attibhment,
or any other remedy whataooter proride& for the oolleotloa
or debti and benefit8 reoeltbd by any lndlrldual. . , shall
be exempt irom mf remsly rhat6ooTer ior the oollsotlon of
all debts. . .* Shoe thla languagr indloate8 a olear
logislatire intent that a olaimant’e right8 to benefltr
ebould be proteotsd against akbmt any oontingenop, it ma7
hare eome bearing upon this oa#e. *.
209
X08. 6.0. IL mlbrpprra, peg. 3
WI via of the faot that the boert8 hrto rsoognltod
the rl&ht of oifret undrr Artlols 4350 quoted above, we
are also intsrsatod in thr usstlon a8 to whether or 8ot
we ma offset our olalm or 0 400.5~ against thr mount ot
bensrits dw thl8 individual IA hi8 sapaoltr a8 8 8laima8t.”
brtlole b350, 1. A. c. f-t., read8 as fOiiOU8l
90 warrant 8h0u be lssusd to any parson indebted
to the State, or to his agent or assignee, until Buoh
debt is psl6.*
That the sontrlbutlonaprorlded for in the Texas
Unemplornent Oompsnsatlon Aot are taxes *other than aih;::oren
taxes’ is no longer an open question in this State.
dsnomlnated oontributionr, they are nonstheless taxes. ?riedman
V. A~UIOM 8umty CO., 151 8. wr (24) 570; Ia r8 llytilyrr,
D. a., 31 P. Bupp. 977; Lallr v. State, 138 S. W. (2d) 1111.
Slnoo the item of )l+OO,51 reooversd by the Blat*
against Frank Ed-rierd Benoit for delinquent oontrlbutlons (tares)
owing.by him as sn employer, subjeot to the Texas Unemployment
oompen8titlon Aot aurilig the years 1939 ma 1940, 18 a tax, ths
question arises as to rhether or aot this tax la a debt owhg
thr State, or whether or not Benoit '18 B person Indebted to
the State*, to USUIthe lx a o tlaaguege et the 8tatutr. That a
state tax 18 not a debt ln the ordinary aoaeptatioa of the
tern ha8 been 80 unirereall~ aooepted is our jurlsprudenoo that
wo do not deem it necessary to site extended luthorltr. Thr
tollowlnbj 04888 arr noted: Dollar Joint Stosk Land Bank v,
Elllr Oounty Levy Improrrmmt Dlstriet Bar 3, 55 8. W. (24) 227r
’ United State8 v. motor, 266 1. 2721 Beo~ v. Tellsr ++.
196 ?. 6341 Forest Olty Yanufaoturl co. ‘1. Ls+y,(Mo.) 3) 8. 1.
(24) 9841 Boll v’. Trosper, 77 P. (28 5u; and l nou& is quoted
tror these earos’to support the aoespted enoral rule that taxes
are not debts or t&t one who owe8 taxer f 8 not indebted to the
Stat*. In the sase of Dallas Joint Stork L8andBank ot Dal148
v, Blllr County L-err Inprovelaent Blstrlot No. 3, supr8, the
OOUrt 80idr
*A tax is not a debt in the usual and ordln~~ sense
or the word. CTtl tit ix 01 D id
OIA Ann 541, 3flgh. ~.“226~00~lt~~nv~~~:i0~~~a sd,)
15,. l l
TO the rimm, err008 ir’tho holdlu Or tudgr t. 0,
gutohrron, r?r, while tudgb Or th. tdbrrl Dlrtrlot Court ei
*ho Xoustoa Dirfrtoa aou on thr 5th Olroul8 Ooart or ~ppoalr,
u th elm 0r md st8tas T. maor, roprrt
“Th$t thd tax 18 not a d&t, and that lntrrert doer
not arlrr u&on lt, unl.88 md rxobpt in reoor4anoo with
t&r prorialoqr oi the rtatate, lr retOle4 br ttm unirareal
ourr*nt or r&thoklty; l 6 la
Jud@ Rutohoron iotib~rurthrr 14th rpproral in an
oplnioo bl Tudgr 8aaborn, f a Crcbtrer t. Ma&don, 54 f, 431,
in ths ronorring laaguq$*:
*Ten8 are not debtr, Thor do not rest upon oontraot,
uprear or lrplled. Thry are lmposod br the le Irlatlrr
authority without the oonrmt rod egalnet the wf 11 or the
prronr tar*& to aaintain the ~OTO~UJt, protoot tha
right8 rnd prftlleger of it8 rubjeotr, or to leooiapllrh
some authorlced rptiirl purpo60, Thy 60 not drew intorest,
lre not eubjeot t0 m-0rr, and 40 m depend ror thrir
rxistenoo o r lroroemant upon the indlrldurl ars~t or thr
tarpryan..
The term ‘dabt* In it6 ordinary sense doer not lnolude
by oaeea from prrrtltdly lrory et&to
br an lraml~atlon or lord8 b
It ioll~~ thea, that the tax due by hvnk Mwaob
Bonoit, riot bring 6 hbt, too8 sot oome withid tbr purview of
Mlole L350, 1, P. 0. S., md ronmpue~tl~ rou wool& aot bo
wthorisoa to wltbhola the lrausnoo or a warrant to him for
bonrt$ta to wbioh he might be lrgally ontitled la UI employee
snder the Texas Unemployment Oompoaaation ht.
It rta;~ bo that our oourle will oonmtruo ho. 15, Sub-
livirioa 0, or the Texar VnemplofllPent Ooaponaatioa Aot , ihioh
HOSESa8 r0ii0*8t
.’
.
No assign-
bbwit6
whioh aro 06 may bemmo dus or payable under this AOt
shall be valid; an4 suoh rlshts to beneritr shall bo
Ub 6r0 sot tingled other tundr of the rdplrat,
with
sha 1 bb 6x0 iron
rewly
t say
whetrower ror the eol-
leotlon
I of alT debtr rxoopt debts lnourrod ror neoossnrlrs
furnlshod to suoh lndlrlbual or his spouse or dependents
during the tlmo Whsn suoh lndirldnel was unemplopa(.. Ro
waiver or any l remptlon provided for 1x1 this subseotl'on
shall bs talid.'
60 as to sword mteotion
to a 0lallRaat uador a state of ra6t6
rush as you sub 9 but we prorrr to base our opialoa upon the
t,
prinalples lnounoob in the deolalonr to whleh wb hato rerarrod.
We brliwo that our answer to thr rlmt question is
also 6 8tiri0iOnt answer to the seoond quostiba as to whether
or not the Stato woald harr thr right to oifsot its judgment
against the $22.00 olrla or Rank lEdwax- penolt, rho ar an
smplo~oo her alrraby been rdjudgeb rotltled to tbls sum or
aonby.
We think the ~6. of Dallas Joint Stook Land Bank
or Dallas v. lIlli6 Lsty Ilaprorrarnt Dlstrlot lfo. 3, supa, 1s
aapla authority to hold la this State that thr ju&gmsat in thlr
oass oannot br orrsst against the ocmpansatlon sla~mf ths
eaplo~ss, Rank Bsnoit, ror it 11 srrsot holds that 6 llaim
against the 8taOo or mniolpallty oaamt be ret orr against
l tax doasasd, md obviously the oonverse or tbls would br
squally true. fn the osso of Bibbard v. Oltik, 6 H.3. 155,
22 Aa. II. 4.42, it was hold under a statute in that stats whloh
protided that where thorr a r rltual debts or demnndr b,rheea
0 piahtitr and th0 nmna~t at the the 0r the oorrrmenooment
0r the piaintirr*r lotion, 0116 dobt or demand may be set 0tr
against thb other, that the SWAOrhould not ba oonatrued to
lnoluds tans lser ssedby l tomrhlp, the truetoo, is a suit
against the prlnolpal defendant, 10 that they PIJ be sot off
against the euma dur rrom tho trustor to tha deiondanti.
Boreoter, wo bolirro that the brord 166-o 6f
#$,, 15, Bubsortioa 0, of the T6xrs Unemplofrunt Oomprnratioa
u$, 16 StifiOi.nt to PrOtOOt this MplOy~ 6~inst w 0161~
ior OffSet bY YirtUO er tho pId@WIt iOr taX66 U&16t hi&
fi will b* Ob**nrd thaO thr laagaaqo ot th16 69Ot1a of the
6t&ute p?OTideS that "rh6ll br Meapt fro8 my rorrrbywh8t$o-
n6f ror thr oollootlon or 6ll debto.. A oountorolrla or Set-
en 16 only
another moth04 or rmody ot oollooting a debt, md
~66 it th6 t6x66 wore 66bt6 bi tb6 t6xpqor, whloh they ar,
rot in the son60 hero Ooluldrrod, we are lnollnod tO the ~18~
that tha lU.@UgO Oi the lta tute QrOOhldO6 6ny aat off or
~ounterolrlr.
It tollows froa wbrt wo hare raid rboro that IO arr
6t the Opi6106 that th6 Corntroller of Pub110 Aroountg 16 not
authorired to withhold the 466~61186 or a w8rruit to this lm-
loyr. by VfrtUO Of Art1016 43504 aad furthor that this 6lalr
Por UnemploymOnt OOmpen66tiO6 iairLcrano6 oannot bo OrrS@t 6g6166t
tbo judgment ior t6xos 6&66t him rhllr ho wali an mployar,
&rr the Tex66 Unoaplopaont Ooep6n6rtlon Aat,
'lery truly your6
l