OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Bonorable klton T. Freeasn
County Attorney
Caine 8 county
Seminole, Texas
Dear sir:
?hie will aoknowle
iese3
y liable to such oounty
intangible rtiluatlon?
cf Sea. 6 of Senate Bll&,442 it is
ci aaseiwLr@ and oolleotlng said equallea-
siv4 therefer the sam ooqanoatlon as 18
and oolleatfng school taxes in doprmon
822
HO5. AltOn T. Freeman, Page 2
*The Tax Aeeeesor eball reoelve a oomlsaion of
one-halr of one per cent for assessing suoh tax, and
the Tax Colleotor a oommlsslon of one-half of one per
oent for oolleotlng the same.”
1. You say the Asseeaor has assessed the dlstrlot
rate of 40# on the $100.00 of the total valuation of the
property ln the dlstrlot (oounty) -#S,OOO,OOO.OO - and olalms
as his feea thrretor wo54-h41f of 054 per oent of total ralua-
tlon whloh Is #8,000,000. and hls fee figures out to be $400.00;~
but one-half of one per oent of $S,OOO,OOO.OOwould be $40 000.001
Obviously, the Asseaaor has not arrived at the amount of his f44s
in tbia way.
The proper way to arrive at the amount of suoh f448
is to oaloulate one-half of one per oont of the taxes aaaessed-
b4lng 406 on the $100.00 of the $S,OOO,OOO.OOTamon, amount-
ing to $32,OQO.O0 - whloh would give $160.00, as oontended for
by the board under your further statenasnt of the tintrorwuy.
The oompensation to the Asmssor aad llkewlss to the
Colleotor Is based upon the taxes aas4ssed and oollected, r4sp40-
tlvely, a&l not upon the valsn of the property agalnet whloh
suah taxes have been asseemd.
2. With resp4ot to your s4oond question, you ax%
advised that Art1016 9105 of the R. C. S. provides Par an a5ma.l
tax upon the Intangible propertlen of oorporatlons, suoh as 011
plpsllne companies,in favor of the State end of the oounty. The
tax therein authorized in favor of the oounty means the oounty
as such. There appears to be no authorlty for the impoeitloa
of the tax upon auoh lntanglbllee in favor of dlstrlots or sub-
dlrlslons or the oounty. In the pr4s4nt case the entire oounty
is embraoed in the oounty-tide epualleation dlstriot~, but,
nevertheless, It Is a dlstrlot and not a oounty within the m4an-
lng of this tax law.
T&8 question seems to be ruled by Bell County Y. Hines,
ale s. 1. 656, where it Is saldr
*we do not think that the oak4f;$tate v. Railway Co.,
209 S. X. 020, la an authorlty as to ~the.‘i&su4 lrmolred in
this ease. That was a suit to OOlleet tqeb for the UUO
and benefit of the Harris oounty ahlp ahannel navf%atlon
dletrlot, on the intangible asaets a@ rolling 8toOk Of
the railway company which had been appcrrtloned to Hprrls
county. The boundaries of the navigation ‘diatriot Wr4 the
HO& Alton T. Freeman, Page 3
Wsame ae the boundaries of Harris oounty, but It was
not Harris county. On the aontrary, It was a body cor-
porate, a separate legal entity, capable of suing and
being sued as such. In that ease the court held that,
while the Legislature might have authorized the dls-
trlot to Jevy a tax on the lntanglble assets and rolling
stook of the railway company, it had not done so, for
the mason that It had authorized the tax to be levied
upon property ‘wlthln said district’; and, while reoog-
nlzlng the power or the Legislature to fix the sltus
for taxation or all personal property, as It had not
fixed the sltus or rolling stook and intangible values
ror taxation for district purposes In any district, the
fa~lf~tlon oompany had no power to tax auoh property.
The ease Is followed with approval in Texas k
Paolilo Railway Company Y. State, 43 8. ?I. (2d) 628.
Trusting that this will answer your inquiry satle-
raotorlly, W are
Your6 very truly
ATTORREYGRRERALOF
BY a4
0014
ASS
0s:MR
COMMIITEL