Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

1.22 OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN -c.yu*, -- consolidation. e8 NO8 appoint4 at ed it8 local tax rat4 A taxpeylsr roi~ss a board of the 00n60iidat8a ich ia located ia that part own aa District So. it on the talidatioa was aads after Jsnuery 1, ‘Is tha taxpayer oorreet in his contention that the Board wll1 have to wait another par to ta% hlo prOpart for sohool pnrpostwa In the oaao of CodeM et al 78. Ftato, I.06 5. ‘dl.567, the COW held that 630 dUlJ OOX&B%itUtd board Of trWhS8 Or aa iode- Panda6 rghool cliatrlot,created by rpblal act June 19, 1918, were iioc. T. k4. rrfmble, ?age e authorized to lrty a rralstsnance tax in Soptezber, 1918, upon the property of tha taxpayer a8 0r January 1, 1915. This holQlng ~98 upon the theory that 811 propsrty owned on the first of January of any year is subjeot to my tax authorized by law, whether author- ized tharetorora or during the year, and whloh my be levied by the bdy given the power to levy, at any tlroe during the year. Xn the 011ae of Blewltt T. mgargsi County Line Independent Lohool Dirtriot, 28& S, ;F. 291, the Comlsrion oi Appeals cited and 6laouessd with approval the loregoing 6eclalon and held that the prlnolple of 1~ therein snunolatsd should apply llkewlro to a eltua- tion where the taxable property maa situated on January 1st of the tax year in territory aubseqtisntly amexed during euoh year to sn indoqmdent aohocl district. 'a'hllethe case of Csdsaa v. State, aupra, inroired property lnoludsd in en iAdPpeildent sohool distrlot thereafter created, in oontrti6t to this case wtioh involved territory annexed to an existing independent rohool'dirtriot, the court reoon- OiiSd this distinotlon with the rOllOWing ~sWy.le~~l ‘A fair oonslderntlon of theststutss makeg pro- rlslon for the oreation of lnde9endent sohool bistrlota leaves r10 reasonsblc ground to aonolude that the Legis- lature lntsnded that no liability for tax98 for aohool purposae in a hchool Qletrlot Ehould arire until the year following the creation of tha distrlot; nor did the tsglslsturs intcL6 that the rules of law governlog taxation for school purpoeea, of property 13 newly annexed tmrltcry, ohouid be different frm tboae w&ioh govern the p%xatioa of property in a newly created dis- triot ." '1~ the sate effect and turning upon an ldantioal foot eltua- tiGt is the later case of Yorktown ?odependent .Sohool Distriot, et al TO. iirrlerbaoh, et al, by the coz~isaion of Appeala of Texea, reported at 18 2. 1.. (26) 1030. Althoueh the facts or the instant oaae present a eirrerant aapeat from tbG% of tta case oitsd and dis0tiasea above, In that a consolidation or two existing oommcn school districts 1s here inrol~ed rather tOan the oreatlon or a mw lndapendsnt aahool district or the annexation of territory to an exlstlng Independent sohool district, we nevertheless submit that the prinoiplas of law announce6 in the foregoizig 6aolslona should be ooctrollfng of tho question berore UB. .U in those oases, it oan be reasoned here that the statutes governing the OOnsOlldstiGn of two existing and contiguous . Hon. T. x. :rimble, ?aee 3 oo~pmon :Chool di6triots afford “no reasonable ground to oonolude that the Ls.&elature intmdad that no liebillty for taxer for sohool purpoeer in a aohool dlrtrlct ehould arlre until the year following the areatloo of the Ulotrlot.* The conoolldetion of the two oom~on school district8 lnrolrsd here 18, to all intent8 and purposes, and ,~sssured by the princlpleo of taxation announce& in the above autb- orititm, the erection ot e new district, known as a mooneolidated Wmswn rchool dletrlatrm And we find nothing in the Btatutes to rmove this case iron tha prlnaiples of taxation lnaounoed in the, toregcing cases for consolidated independent school dirtriots, newly Oreated independent sohool dlstriats, or independent eohool dietriotr to which territory hsr bean annexed. On the contrary Artlole E814, Yernon’a Amotated Clrll Statutes, point8 to aa opposite intent in provldlng, in part, ea follows: “TEx~D~ and bondiw powara e& are provided for elre- ahere in the laws of this Sate sre hereby gtmranteed to nuoh coodoli&ate$ dOtrict.* 'lie therel'ore amwer your queation in the negatfrr. The porltlon of the taxpayer oannot be austalned under the autborititir, and.p,roperty altuated on Yanuary 1, 1939, in Comon Sohool Distriot Ho. 17 ot Xuecea County will be subject to tam8 duly lsvle6 end amessed thereafter by the proper authorities of the Coasolldeted Coreaon Yobool orertad by a consolidation cf Cclrpt~ Yohool Dlstriete Nor. 0 end 17 OS eela County. Trueting that the toregoing eatief8ctorlly amwara your inquiry, we are Your0 rbry truly