E ATTORNEY GENERAL
OFTEXAS
AUSTIN ~~.TExAS
PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
March 6, 1948
Honorable Will R. Wilson, Jr. Opinion No. V-S14
District Attorney
Dallas, Texas Re: The disposition to be
made by the Tax As-
ATTN: Hon. Douglas E. Bergman sessor-Cc?llector of
First Assistant partial payments 0n
accrued delinquent
ad valorem tax e s .
Dear Mr. Wilson:
Your request for an opinion of this office dated Janu-
ary 30, 1948, supplemented by the letter from the assistant state
auditor and your subsequent letter to us giving more specific in-
formation may be reduced to the following question :
What disposition should be made of $1.586.64 deposit-
ed in the County Depository as delinquent ad valorem taxes by the
former tax collector, now deceased, received by him in partial
payments and found to his credit in the depository at the time of
his death?
You state that of this amount $642.55 was collected
from July 1, 1937, to March 1, 1939. We shall dispose of this part
first. As you are aware, within the dates indicated here, there
existed statutory authority for the tax collector to receive pay-
ments from taxpayers in installments or partial payments. This
is covered by Article 7345~~ V.C.S., which expised by its own
terms February 28, 1939. The pertinent psovbsien of th%a statute
head as follows:
“All of such installments paid by such delin-
quent taxpayers shall immedia&ly beme the
respective
Honorable Will R. Wilson, Jr., Page 2 (V-514)
This statute affords specific authority as to the dispo-
sition of the sum of $642.55 presumably collected by the tax col-
lector under the terms of this Act. The commissioners’ court
should now order this sum of $642.55 disbursed by the deposi-
tory as required by Article 7250, V.C.S., which reads as follows:
“Except as to compensation due such tax col-
lector as shown by his approved reports, tax money
deposited in county depositories shall be paid by such
depositories only to treasurers entitled to receive
the same, on checks drawn by such tax collector in
favor of such treasurer.”
We turn next to the disposition to be made of the balance
of this money, $944.09, concededly collected by the tax collector
without authority. Except as may be provided by statute, the tax
collector has no authority to receive from a delinquent taxpayer
any sum less than the full amount of taxes, penalty, and interest
due, which were delinquent for any one year on any one tract sep-
arately assessed for that year. Any arrangement between the tax
collector and the taxpayer for the payment of his taxes in install-
ments or partial payments, not provided for by statute, is strictly
a private matter between the tax collector and the taxpayer, and
not binding upon the State and county, unless ratified by such tax-
ing authority.
It was stated in Scisson v. State, 51 S. W. (2) 703 (Ct.
Crim. App.) that:
‘6
1 . * The judicial precedents are to the effect
that private arrangements for payment (differing
from the statutory method), made between the col-
lector and taxpayers, and performance thereof, are
at the risk of the parties thereto, and not of the state
or county.. . ,*
The principle of law is stated by Judge Fly in the case of San An-
tonio Suburban Irrigated’.Farms v. Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Coun-
ties Water Improvement District No. 1, 49 S W. (2) 511 (,Ct. Civ.
App.), as follows:
a.
. * . The laws for the collection of taxes, by
implication at least, forbid a resort to other meth-
ods of collecting taxes than the statutory method.. . .”
In brief, it is our conclusion that such sums as were
paid to the tax collector by taxpayers in an amount less than the
taxes delinquent for any’ one year on any one tract separately as-
sessed for that year based upon a private agreement between the
- ,e,-
Honorable Will R. Wilson, Jr., Page 3 (V-514)
tax collector and the taxpayer is wholly unauthorized. Such
payments do net constitute the collection and payment of taxes
as provided by statute. The tax collettor merely helds such funds
as trustee in his individual capacity for the per sen paying the
same to him and such funds do not belong to the $tate and county,
In other words, they are not public funds, and should be returned
to the respective persons to whom they belong by proper order of
the commissioners’ court. Such funds do not now have, and have
never had, any proper place in the county depository.
If it should now develop that the original payors have
died, and their heirs or devisees can be located, such funds
should be paid to them; or, if such original payers have disappear-
ed and cannot be located, then we know of no other method lf dis-
posing of these funds except under the law of escheat.
SUMMARY
Delinquent taxes paid to the county tax collector
in installments or partial pyments under statutory
authority as existed prior to March 1, 1939, and de-
posited in the county depository, constitute public
funds and should be paid te tke oeunty and state
treasurer in such proportion as is necessary to
satisfy the taxes, penalty, and interest due to each.
If, however, such partial payments are thereafter
paid to the tax collector upon a private arrangement
by the payor and the tax collector and without strtu-
tory authority, such payments do net constitute pub-
lic funds, but remain the private funds of the payor
and should be returned to such payer if he is living
and can be located; if deceased, then to his heirs or
devisecs. If the legal owner cannot be located, then
such funds world be subject to escheat. Article 7345c,
V.C.S.; Art. 7250, V.C.S.; Scisson v. State, 51 S.W. (2)
703 (Ct. Crim. App.); San Antonio Suburban Irrigated
Farms v. Bexar-Medina-Atascrsa Counties Water Im-
provement Dist. No. 1, 49 S.W. (2) 511 (Ct. Civ. App.).
Very truly yours
APPROVED ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
,
Ye
F T ASSISTANT
AT ORNEY GENERAL, By
L@Lh
Assistant
LPL/JCP