Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

GERALDC.IvlANN. A- i,. ‘FiaAb Honorable George H; Sheppard Gpinion No. O-4189 Comptroller of Public Accounts Re: Liability of non-resident Austin, Texas owner of mr6V1 prnpsrty for ad valorem t6%66wbcre 6och property is used on fed- eral area6 and reservation6 Dear Sir: in Texas .We hve received y9ur request,for an opinion from thi6 department. ‘tie quote ffoom your request: ‘I am enclosi@g inquiry received fromth&.la;~ ternational Business Machines Corporation Gctibar 20 with rderenc~ to the Uabilfty of tbis company for ad valorem+axes on proper* b&mging to th6 compar?y F-L z66 fn tbc VariO”s &my .&St6 in tha Stqtc.X!f, . Atcached to your r9quest i6a latter froq.t&‘+r -6. w personal property involved in this opikdoo from which we quote: ‘Inaccordance yvithyour spggeetion, oyr Man- age; at San Adodo talked with J..ie~tenant+o@el Jaqrs .E. Morrisette. at Fort Sam ~ZIouston, regarding locati+Is of our cqdipment on F-e&4 areas and rec.ervatioas in Texas. We feel quite certain that Fr equipment located a6 ShOWa below is exempt from personal property+6x 66- Se6Sm6qt, but wt6h t0 have yY#lr CorrfCr~tiOU Of this, if po6sibla. by return mail. . . . Us, War Department; Qu&ermacltar arp6 U.S. Wti Department, Nor.moyle CbarW,master Depot,Motor TranapprtDivision, CampNor- moyle U. 6. War Department, Qw~4.+~mma~ter~ 8th Corp. Area Headqu6rtersw ForkSam Houston U. 6;. War Department, Medical Corps, :Supply De- pot,FortS6mHouetan . U.S. War Department, San Antonio Arsekl So. Flares Street U.&War Department, Fort Sam Hous& U.S. War Department, Air Corps, Duncan Field %alla6: IJd S. D&tmen$ Of AgfiCUltUra, 5brm Security Admild6trrtio&~Admblb3tratiV6 BUi%ding.. Stats Fair of Texas Farm ckedit &iUIhIi6~athI, Emergency Ciop and Feed Luan Office, Federal Building and Tere1 Apnax North Amerkan Aviatbn Company - Roperty owned by U. S. Federal Government “El Pasoz Aajutant Gamral Gfflce. Machbe Reords Unit. Fort Bliss ‘Fort Worth: Austin Company, Consolidated Bomber Plant - Property owned by U. S. Federal Coverhmant ‘%orpw Christi: nrbwn-8ellow64Zoldmbia. bMn Station. Naval Air Station.’ ~a~rrl~pers~lprapartylautadZnTans. owned by a non-rerfdent. is taxable under the laws d this State provided th6 sanm has obtained a taxable 6itu6.. Hall v6. Mller. 110 f&W.. 159, af- f&mea in 115 S.W. 1168. We now c'busider the applicable rule6 + apply to &turmb if the property has.acqtdred a tsxable sitru d&in the State of TBS. In tlm 468 of Waggoner v6. Wbab, 21 CA, 50 SAW. 153, .the courtheld that cattIe, shipp6d into Texas from Oklahoma to bs fed and fatten& in feed lob ha Tan6 and from there sent to out-of-state mar- kets, were taxable in the count where t&y were f&d. The court said: We are not fnclizted to hold that cattle in Texas. while being fat&ted in the owners pens for the oMs%le mar- kets. are too transient to ham a 6itu6 and be tucable here. .* * + It is a local isdustry, and during the feeding aea6oa the cattle.fromWhatevezsour& theymay~omc. become an imporlaatp6rtoftlm~m6861 per6onal propcrtyoftbastate. enjoytng alike the proteetidn of our laws and subject td tb6 commoa burden d taxatioi~” In our opinionNo. O-3059we have compiled other ca6es with feference to the taxability of livestock brought from another state inc0 Texas which are gra6ed and fattened here. A copy of that opinion i6 enclosed. We think the sanje general rules that are expressed therein could be appli- cable to the fact6 presented by you. Ina=,P+!%.r?b &&,F+RYe,.Gz!. Ci.?%b~DS~~.vs* cnlfi.sG (C&f of ‘civ~App.)..&S,W. 497, r8ver68d ‘&‘$$e.r. gqpjqi~i.iq~6’~~..&(2~) 292. Judge Hickman, speaking fo;. t&$$&.$ d @1%1 &pea+, .se+, .*“C+cwmd .“qik?sm v?os s#e. +u+i~,,Joca- -tion..a p.@Fe arheroithIng’is.~..GrccPe.Couqty ys..lQ$.g&, 126.Ga* q?4..54 g.E, J9!g.; fl~~m~Qf.~FI~n.i6pdtraqt2?rq~.~ fi$ *i*. rt it.ve=, r~~~~..~~~ccentrg= of ~w.p+l,p+ob -rty b om, +~vWl =.sw,taxatipp, For *.,ptai?;.. p-=(! ~.tucat?on..ttre.si~~f~~~~l~r~~r.ty..~pe~~ ~PDS.~~. s+act=r. 7t $h= Y.F=.* y?g4 the pr0perfy.L ;P!e.” Wh&e p&r66661propeky is’being conrtin~y mow&.i$ situs for localtaxation, i6 fixed by the domicile of the owner. City of f;$ ~o$l~y+ S@WqgP Creyhonad *ea.; !23. Ten, $5.67 S,W.(Zd) . 4$vqxy~~ghdiscu66ion of therecentcase dth6 Unitad~h6&~erwCoorfconc~mingthepoaerof~er~tetotax pqr?onal prope,Fty~t)@~ borders,owned by a non-re6%dent, is found in 123 A&R. 179. Auordhi< to the annotation of the case6 therein eu- pre6sed th6 United States &preme’Court has, in its mart recent deci- sfons~ geparilly re+iiiied the’power of a state to tar personal proper- ty properly withtnits borders. The facts which you have submitted to a6 do not frvPt6h u6 witha sufficient tkctual b66i6upon which to determinewhetlq or no% the propsrty &quired about has acquired a tarcable situ6 in Texas. 'Ilrdrefore, we do not pa66 upon whether or not the property ha6 actually acquid’a taxable situs within the State of Texas. However, we+b6,ve. @von.the rules which are applicable and fr’om which you may be able to determine ‘that fact. .: It id’& established law tbat the state h+.no.tanf,ng power vver Fe-z&r@!. arvs. such as army post6 or miltt?+6y.rese+vatiods. .where a deed of cession to such area ha6 been made by a state to th6 Federal Government for.any: of the enumerated purposes in Article 1, Section 8, ~Sub-sec+~)7 &l.SJZA.) of the United %6tu6. in which of the