OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable George 3. Sheppml
iIokpttoll6r of Publio Aooounts
AUElt.LrI,
Texas
Dear Sii:
Ill YOW 16tt6r 40, you advim thqt in
1934 a oertain taxpayer r perty at .lts actual
market value, which rend1 duoed by the Board of
Equallzatimi. Eovwrer, as el-',iesIn the county
for the am year es w6xx-1lntantlon3Uy
tixqd at only for alue by the atard of
Equalization. Y s to whether or not
tho Cocmission mcy now deolare such
aFJsesomalt voi to ba mossessod for
the year in qu
lsad Civil Statutss, in ren-
Yalu.3tion Lbercto ," etc.
Khl.lo it is untioubtodly ooniezplsted that property
shall be ofxossed and taxed u.gon its fail cash mar&t value
ht. 8, see. 20, and Art, 8, Sec. 1, State Const., at-a!
Art.
7164, ii.C.3.)‘ iS aust bo borne in tinti that Artiole 6, Section
Eionorable George Ii. Sheppard, Page 2
the Constitiction of Texas, also requires that Taxation
;L”L be equal and UniforsP, and provides that nisl..l.
property
. . l
&all be taxed fp groportion to its value".
Xn Lively vs. N. K. and T. ~?ai.luayCoznw, 120 S.S.
222, by the Supreme Court, ths intang5.bl.oassets of a railroad
wera assassed at full value, vheruas 'tie property or individ~uels
was assessed at only two thirds of its real value, in accordance
vith a deliberately adopted policy. In answer to certified
questions, the Supren3 Court held that the trial court had cor-
rectly granted an injunction against the collection of taxes
on nor% than two thiz-ds of the value of such intangible assets.
After observing _that v;hile other property was deliberately
assessed at oaly 66 2/3 per cent of itsreal Value, the lntangi-
ble assets of ths appellee were assessed at 100 per cent, the
court said:
*. . . It Is evident that this was a deliberate
soheme 69 the part or the officersor Eallas oounty by
nirich the assessmnt was tide at the pro?ortioh of
its value stated, end there is nothins An ths case to
IJdtiuate that there was any tietake on the part or
the offioers. It was the delibera:elp adopted policy
to so discrizlnate betwee the 6ifferaEt olasses of
property in the as6essc;ent for taxation. It is not
necessary that the officers fin so disorimlnating
should have intendeds~ecificslly to injure the ap-
pellee or Ether railroad co4~mi8s. It is sufficient
that by their action they Ce::iad the appellee the
equal proteotion of the Constitution and lam of the
state. The intention vith vhich the acts were done
is of no oax3eq2ep3e. Suoh,deliberate action on the
part of officers charged vith the ezforcezent of the
la-amst be Bald. to ba the aot of the state, and she C
appellcc me. aztitledto relief a:;sinst t:ie.eaforce-
ment of the exce3sive assensmnt, , .
*Counsel for the ap~:ellants objeot ~to the re-
&Jction of th6 vslus of app311ee13 gropcrty as
assessed by tbc stsse board beca~oe t&at. ,a3sessznt
was mdo in cmfmzzity to the Gm3tituticg -gmC !.av3
of the stat6 2inti ms tkrefore valid. I< is clairied
that it is not pertissiblo to overturn this valid
assess~mt anti to bc.ne the juQ,mnt of the court up-
on that v:;S:ch~3 &ado contrary to the 1~:~s and Con-
stitution. Thst is it p1nusibl.a >m?osition, and
w~3uld ba u2plicablc if the object of t.lis prooai?ding
721
Boaarable i38orge H. Shsppsrd, Page 3
were to enroroe the ri.zhts or the appqlee to a rair
valuation of its property. But, aa statted bePore in
this opinion, the wow +Ai.iohwas'inflicte% upon the
appellee was noi,in re.qtiring it tcr pay.twe5 upon
t&e fullvalue 0r its proparty, but in denying to it
the equality oi taxaticn se~u.ied,by the Constitution,
which e+ality of s+-tioa necessarily depmds'upon
uniforzity 0r asssssmnt. . .=
Ordinarily the action of a board of equallzaticn upon
a particular piece of'propertp is final, and a valilation will
not b8 Set at3iES l?i8ZCu U?OE ShOVJinath.tlt it iS~8XO8SSiv8.
BOWeaW , eilch eO8S not ho16 trU8 uhan such exoessi~e valuatitiaa
is shown to result fron fraud on the part- of the board of equal-
izatic?n,.or iron ah arbitrary or fuadamntolly wohg n&hod of,
SSS8SSU8nt. Liv.alg vs. Fly, supra; Stats vs. Mallet Iand am5
Cattlc Co., .SD 3,i;;i(2) 4711 aowland vs. Cfty of~Tyler, 5 S.::.
(2) 756; T. d; Fe By. CO. vii, xi hS0, a5 se%; (2) 245; &?8d8C
(&) e.7;. X!r;eaC~w
land Ind. School Dist. vs. Carter, 93 S~.k'..
VS. i%8r, is29 %%i, 493.
'Zn the ease d&h &I.% sub&i t3 us, the taxpayer ?cas
oonplying with the statute in rendering his 3rogerty. Ee sha;lld
not be discouraged Crmi dshg t!mi. In &dVbg the totuFtlVitLU8
andzaking oath to it he sas oniy swasriag to the truth. ii8
should not be penalized for that. 1Z8 WnS 8ntitlGd to b31ieV8
that all. property would be assesseti at its, true valua, or ir
otLer progmty vias to be daliberately swsssed at only a frao-
tional part of’ its value tht his asssssma@i wml.~ bG reduced
as p,rcvvidGdih titicle 72l.2. Xhothsr the iailuro to ditiinish
tha valuation on his progorty ras intcntfonti or accidental, the
8ri'&Ct i3 th8 9338. Proportionally he is paying EO:D than tiiioe
tha tax piti by thoso about bin. This violates Section 1 of hr-
tic18 G of t&8 Sate Constitution requir9.n~;that tcration be
epuai emi uniform. In oil,” opinion tho aotior? oz? the Eoard of
Quallwtion was void as to this uan's aseassmnt. ti I;rusnCow
vs. &&er, supra, the Suprema Court said:
The decisions of the (State) Tax &arc! in
thG imttcr of valuations are c_uasi judicial iu
their nature. This notion (to enjoti collecti
of tax ,is th8Tefore & collateral attack u>oa the
jucgmnt or a ;ua~si judicial ixibunaf. Such an
attack cmatt bc Jus;tificd in the nbsenoc of fraud,
f Eonorable George B. Sheppard, Page 4
or something equfvalent thereto; lack of jurisdfo-
tioo; ah obvious violation of the law, or the ado?;.
tion of a funmentally wrong principle or nethod,
the application of uhich substactially injures cost-',
p1abult.=
The comnissioners* court sitting as a board of equal-
ization is acting in a slm.Uar casoity to that or the state
Tax Board, end if the decision of the one is quasi judicial in
nature 50 is that of the other. See C. C. &S. F. 83. Co. vs.
atate, 9 5. 3. (2), 1051, at p. 1052, so indicating. Our
courts ,have frequently granted lnjunctioas to prevent the ool-
lection of axoessive taxes,where such exoessivesess is a
result of the adoption of a fundmentally wrong nethod of
assessmnt or of fraud or other arbitrary action on tha part
&the board of equalization. This oan only Eean that assess-
ments whioh are excessive by reason of such situations are.
VOld.
fn our opi.nion, the 1954 aesessmmt described above
vzasvoid end reassessment xzay be had as provided in Chapter 11,
Title 122, Revised Civil Statutes.
Bearlag an the question we %ould also cite the cases
of State vs. Houser, L37 S.‘J;.(2) 800, French Independent
School Dist, vs Bowth, 134 9.3. (2):1036, and C&I& S.F. By.
Co. vs. state, 9 S.U. (2) 1051. ~'.
B3b4L:
Glen B, Lewis
Assistant
/ATTORNEY GEIUSRAL OF 'i-s?.\:::