OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
I 0-C.-
--
4
BY Opinion Ho, O-gllN, addressed to you, we a&
vivod thdt it was FrOpUr for the QouxktyAseesso~-Oolleotor
to ~~3055~ an4 OolleOt the Olt9 tares for the olt9 Of BOW
Uke an4 thnt thb valuationrfOr the oity taxes should be
the 88na as t&F30 rOr stM.0 aII4OOUkIt9JjIEpOOeEt mW
ill@
of no reason why these olbp tams may not be prepare& UQOQ
the same roll an4 the etatemaut~laadaout upon thr aam
paper for both olty an& cloudy tens.
Your eeoond que~$lon,as to whether tha oollootor
nvlgaooept the 8tut.ea14 oounty taxer an4 lasso a moelpt
the-for without, at the #am tim, oollwting the oity
tuea, pseaants a more 4lttioul.tquestion, In op,LniontiBor
0-l262, we held that a Tax A8erssor-Uol.lestor may -8 a+
aept paym0nta r0r oouaty Baror uJl1sssthe atat-0tax.8 cm
paid at the same t&no on tha ama pi600 or property. Au,
thority ror this opinion was based upon tha 0880 or -D:-,
tr,TXOXPSON, 8blS.W. 277 wharsln the Oourt of Olril Ap
pels hsld.that a Oountp hia Asmswr-Oolleotor my refuw
to 5000pt p0pmt or property taror unl0~~ th0 mw, who
is a resident of that oountr, at tha eanw time, tmmr
ptiphm 0r hi8 ~0s~ tar. The oourt in that ease rru&aImd
pre;;li4it9 of a ruling or the Btate Qoniptrollu? to t&at
l Clearly the clomptroller has Jurisdiotloato oaak;r
riilearelative TV the etato ad wilorea taxer and polJ wuu,
rinos the ooU#tion or both are put under hia ocawol urb
eqmvialon by the atatutos, 'PhaState Cor@mllar hag fso
jurlsdiation whatever over oity affalru or the oolkotioa
0r 0ity ta638, Any rogulatlon wiilohhe mi@t ioew per-
%balningto the payaant of olty tame, oould ham no &foot.
WUnon's Annotate4 Oivil Statutes, Artiola lO42b, whlah au-
ttorizecl the appointmen%b9 the proper oitp autboritl;ie8 o?
the County Tax Asseesor-Colleotora# the asoesW1 and ool-
leotor 0r tHxu8 r0r the oity, makaa no mation of whathar
the city tax should be ooll@0t84at tha scum tfiaea# the
atate and oountg taxes. Artiole 73960, relating $0 thr
00mt0ti0n 0f eaxae r0r 0~ an4 indepe~4012ta00z dc8-
trlota, expressly authorissa the payment of the mhool die-
tri0t thxe0 aeptmte aa4 apart frf~~the pclyment 0r the rtato
an4 ooulltythxar). We have no euoh ttxpresa, authoriaatlanin
the instance now under oonol4erat~on, Howsrer there la Do
statute or appllottb3.e admfntatratlveruling whioh requirea
that the city an4 the state taxes must be pfd at the samm
chief JuustibsOuseton, rrpeaking for the TextxrSugrcrme
Go% in IiIcfilsY V. l&00X,840 5.W. 178 at page 174, aaid;
m * 0~0 QP~LOIL, wt3w033, thalrLf 4 tiaspa~er
Madem hi0 &ate and oounty tezem%nd retises to pa hia
Olty of SourLake taxes, tJm oolleotor.nmstaoaept t3:
8 state
an6 aoua8y taxes end iem a pro or reoqtgt thave~or, bten
thoughhe does not, at t&e earpb e irr, 9olleaS t&m We@ oa
the mme prolpertylevied by the @My at Bou~Saksa doni
vermly, 6 taxpayg ahaul be permitted to ,my hts diOy of
Sour Lake taxer, without, at the rrmaatinu* payins hi.6
Gate aad.croaatytaxes on the aam propyr Xe are aware
thatthia prorredwe laagplaoe aa a44i onal btidea~upoathe
Sax Amessav9olledtor, bu8 this appears to'be unavoidable-
APP’ROWtDs~ 9, 1940
L.&
ATTORNEYGENERAL OF Tl?XAS
WXX,ob
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion