-
515
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
em-c-
--
Donorable Roy L. Hill
county Attorney
Rumals County
BalllnGar, Texas
Dear sir:
.
the new dlstrlct
property or the
that was iorserly
OJXLOD school dls-
a lesser psrcont-
s actual value
property of the
f the new district
ch was formerly In the
dependent school district?
ur letter of September 9,
1940, ion of this departcmt on
the f
on School District la con-
ndependant School District,
Districts have a fifty (SO)
the consolidation Is perfected,
the tax to One ($1.00) Dollar.
Could the-dependent Dlstrlct assess that Dart
Or thl8 district, which was fomerly the COE?.O~
School Dlstrlct, below .Stato and County valua-
tion; and not aaseas the other part oi the dls-
trlct on the aam basls?~*
Honorable Roy L. Hill, Page 2
Apparently the consolldatlsn you refer to took
place under the authority of Article ES06 of the Revised
civil Statutes, which reads, in purt, as folio-m:
Vozzon school districts my in like aan-
ner be conzolid~tod with coztlg2ous independent
school dlstr:cts, and the district so creuted
shall bo Minoanby tho urme of the inde-pendent
school district Included therein, nnd the :tinage-
meut of the m-8 district shall ba uader the ex-
isting board of trusteoa or’ the indepcnfient
school dlrtrict, and all the richts &d prlvi-
ley.es praktad to iadacaudect iiFstrifia by the
laus of tlil:~ .I:tntos!nll b:: !riven to zi.5 con-
solinated lncoye:idont district CrcsiCd under
the provisions cf this laW; . . .s (Lphasis
ours)
We wish to oall your attention to that part or
Article 2606, above quoted; which provide2 thut the fiew
consolidated independent district has all the rlchts and
privileges granted to indapcndant CistriCts by the laws
or this State. Ths taxing power is granted to such. in-
dependent dlstriats by Article 2764 of the Revised Civil
Statutes which reads, in part, as foSlows:
‘The oom&isloners court for the comon
school districts in its count-y, and the dis-
trict school trustees for the lzdependont
school dlstricts lncorpozated ror sctool pur-
poses only; shall hsve rower to levy ard cause
to be collected the anrual taxes and to Issue
the bonds herein authorized, subject, to the
rollowing provisions :
” . and in independent districts for
the mtkecance of schools therein, an ad
valorerj tax, not to exceed one dollar on the
one hundred dollars valuation of taxable prop-
erty or the district.”
Based on the above-quoted article, this depart-
rent ruled in Cpiulon No, O-2623 as follovre:
t‘i - 517
l%moruble Roy L. Eill, page 3
\
Tie feel sure thut the school authorities
of ileridian Icde,~eudent School District aze en-
tirely FzrAitJr with the above stntutes, and
wo can orly advise, in tho abneme of a aorc)
specltlc question, t: at ti:ey ma7 grocegd to
levy, aoaeoo axd collect tarsa o,C th?, newly
oreatod di3trlct, under the ome procedure fol-
lowed by the- in lcvyin;, aazessinc end col-
leoting taxes for ssld district prior to Its
aonsclldatim -hit? Eidviay District Xo. 63,
Basque County. Saici Comolidhtizn of date June
4, 1940, doe; not in any asy alter the proaedure
outlined by the above statute3 for the levy,
assessmn: and collection or taxes for lndeyend-
ent sob001 districts, or dereat the fight of
Eerldlan Indopeudent School District to levy,
assess and oolleot taxes in the mount voted,
tram persons and proparty of the old oomim school
district for the currlnt year,”
Apparently fro:i yoalr question the new independent
district wlshos to value the property of the part that was
Z’ormerly the cozen school dlstriot st s Lesser percentage
than the paroentaga taken of the voluo of the property that
v.as formerly in ttle Independent school distrlot. You are
advised that this cay not be done because such aatlon would
unquestiombly be lo VioZctiOa Of Eection 1 or Artl0l.e 8 0r
the Constitutl:n or Texas, which reads, in part, as follows:
WTaxation shall be equal and uuifom. All
. property in this State, whether omed by natural
persona or corporations, other than nuuioipal,
shall be tared in proportion to its value, nhioh ,i
shall be asoertnined as Mayobc provided by law.-
.e ln
The aourts of this State have on nuc?roua oooasions
held that the above quoted provision of the Constltutloa re-
quires that all the property wlthin a taxing district be taxed
equal17 and unifon~ly. 17113 would reoulre the use of the same
percentage of the actual value of all of ths F:ro;eerty as a
basis for the tax. The Texarkano Court of Civil Appeals in
the oase of U~lllns v, Colrax Consolidated School District,
18 5. W. (ad) 940~, stated as follovis oonoernine the Colfax
Consolidated School DiStrlCtr
.. _~. .
Eonorable Roy L. Hill, page 4
\
*It is ia strict accordance with funCa-
nento.1 law ttat all tsx'lb13 proprty wi;kln
tha c~~~l~~~~ted tiiztr1ct 0 3 t.cixln* Cl_q-
trict, &houli. be taxed unk&ly, ehd‘thtt
there should ho'. be a no3uuifsrzAty of tax c
rate for the 88~3 public purposes. . ,*
In the cnss of zefith3rly Inde-ondent School Dis-
trict v. Iiu$m3, 41 5. 7:. (XC) 445, eafd school district
at tetipted t.o value put of the promrty of saic district
at on3 hucEr?d p3r cent of its actual vslue acd vclus other
PrO~rtJ iE tk saed district at only fifty per cent or its
value. The k.SiliO COW Or civil AF';33lS hold that such
procedure was in violation of S3ctlon 1 of Article 8 of the
COUStitUtiOG of TOX~S, 3ad st3te.d as follows:
.-The record, In our view of thd case,
show3 fully a dlscrimihtitlon in the Indapent-
ant school Uistrict*s valuation, in this: The
valuation plnced on pl3intiffa' lard by the
lnde;3unCost school district bo;lrd was $10 per
acre and ths land wa3 taxed 100 per cent. It
appears clear fro& the evidence before the I
txlul court that.the l..lalntiffs~ lazd ~'~13taxed
upon such 1CC par cent valuation and that the
la&d3 or th3 wltnoss who did tsstiiy as to the
ralmtion of his land were taxed at mch less
than 50 per cent of th3ir value-.
". . .
"The lovyinz of a tax uron the'plslntlffs*
land by which they Bra dlscrk!iinetsd agslcst ’ :
is a tahing of their Rroprtrty without due pro-
cess of ltiuf. This azounta t.o legal fraud and
justiflos the issuance of an injunction aginst
the collection of such illegal tax. Such a dla-
crininatior violates Flaintlffs~ right to hnve
the tax uniforfiy levlsd acolnst their property,
and equal ‘v::: h those of ‘otter tax payers.
0. . .
"Tax.88 are *equal rind unlforrz* within the
comtitutisn v:hsh no p3rson or olass 0r persons
in ths territory tax3d, is tured st a hi::h.sr
rate than others in the mm district up03 the
Honorable Roy L. Hill, rage 5
same values or thing a%d when the objects of
taxes are ths saze by whomosver o&d or shat-
ever they b3. . .
*.“Ttie rule laid dov;n thst taxes st;all be
equal 8nd unirora aprlles to nuzIcljx31 as well
as state taxes. City of Austic v. Austin Ca3-
Li@lt. etc., co.,. 69 Tea. 183, lS7, 7 S. :‘:. 200.”
The safris rule of lsw was laid down by the East-
land Court of Civil Apflals in th8 case of Flunt v. Throck-
carton Indepandent School District, 59 !3. %‘. (26) 470. The
court stated as follows:
We have above referred to oertoin testl-
mony adduced on the trial, but the testisony
generally in comection with that s~eciflcally
rererred to, when properly and reasonably con-
6tru3d, discloses that the detendant's property
was valued at 100 per cent. or its riarkat value
on January 1, 183, whereas ot.her propsrty ln
the district, namely, ram lands and city prop-
erty, were taken at 50 par cent or less of their
value. The plan adortod aad above discussed
logically led to inequality acd dl6criiAnatioE.
. . . n
To the same erfect see the case of Santa Rosa v.
Lyrord Independent. school District, 78 6. Vi. (26) 1061, by
the =E Antonio Court of Civil Appeals.
you are therefore advised that the new oonsolidated
independent dist.rlct. you rerer to day not ror tax.purposea
value the property of a portion of the district at a-lesser
percentage of its actual value than the percentage used for
the rest of the property of such district.
Yours very truly
BG:ew