OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Bon. Oeor~e R. Sheppard
Comptroller or Fxbllo Aooounta
Austin, Texas
Dear Mr. Sheppard:
is whether
us to 18 where a
lease was assessed
of the lessor landowner, and
tha taras being paid. Llablllt~
disputed. We will not po into
of this dispute but we will
aa atateb In the pre-
“<-.Thls question was answered in an opinion dated
Deoember 1~,~-‘l937, by J. R. Broadhurst, Aaalstant Attorney
Oanaral under Wm. HoCraw, a4 r0ii0w8;
“IOU ora a6vlmad that in the opinion of
this dopartmmt tho Oomai8slonorr~ Oourt has
no authority to make any oomprondae or reduc-
tion whatrosver la the amount of taxes aerorsed
aFain8t dOlinqU4nt prop4rty.”
Hon. Ceorpe R. Sheppard, January 23, lQ?b,,Page 2
Onfortuuately uo statutes or authoritlss were oltsd or any
ronsons given ror this holding.
As stated In the oas4 ot Landman v. Steto (Ct. Clv.
App.) 97 3. 7s. (2d) 264:
~Commlsslonere~ Courts oan 4~4rol44 only
auoh powers aa the Conrtltutlon or the Legisla-
turo speoltloall~ oonrers upon thsn, Conltl-
tution, Art. 5, &IO. 18.”
Thlr sam rule had been prevlousl~ stated by the Suprem
Court or T4xes in the oasoa or Bland v. Orr, 90 Tex. 492,
59 9. W. 558, and Mills County T. Lampasas County, 90 Tex.
803, 40 s. w. 403.
The oonstltutlonal grant of power to the Cormlsalon-
4rs* Court Is round In Article V, section 18, and Article VIII,
Seotlon 18, of the Constitution of Toxa13, and the statutory
grant of ower 18 found in Title 14 (Articles 2339 to 23720
lnoluslr4 P and Artloles 9206, 7211 and.7212 or the Revised
Civil Statatas of Texas; and no authority to r414as4 or oom-
promise aoorued tax olalms’ Is stated in these provisions.
Artlole VIII, seation 18,,of the Constitution and
Artlol4r 7206, 7211 and 7212 of the Statutes, refsrred to
above,. provide that the Commissioners* Court shall sit as a
county board or equalization for taxes prior to June 1st or
eaoh rear, and several oases have arisen as to their power
over taxes br virtue of this authority. ln the oase of Claw-
son Lumber Company v. Jones, 49 S. W. 909, It was said:
“After the approval of ths roll by the Board
or aqualizatlon, it had no furthor jwlsdiotion
In the matter, and the order of the Comrlm&ma~s*
Court made F’sbruary 21, 1898, reduoing the as-
s4ssmont, was void ror wat of .authorlty In the
ootut to make the orddr.”
In the oaso of c. R. I; k C. Ry. co. vs. Stat4, 241 S. if. 255,
It was 8altl:
wAftor the tax rolls am aado up ln socord-
auoo with the *rlnal* review and aotion of that
tribunal and are oortlrled by suoh board’(Oom-
missioners* Court) their jurlsdiotlon over that
property for assessmsnt purposes ror that ysar
is legally ondad.” (Parenthesis OuN)
Hon. George H. Sheppard, January 23, 1939, Page 3
Not only does the Constitution iall to grant suoh
authority to the Commissioners* Court, but it puts certain
llmltatlon8 on the Loplslature that ml&t have some bearing
on this question. Art1018 VIII, section 10, provides:
"The Legislature shall have no power to rc-
lease the inhabitants of, or property in, any
oountp, city or tov.nfrom the pay&M of taxes
levied for State or County purposes, unless in
oase of treat pub110 oalamlty in any suoh oounty,
olty or.town, when such reloass may be made by
a vote of two-third8 of saoh House of the Logls-
lature."
krtlole XII, seotlon 55, provldssr
"The Legislature shall hnve no power to re-
1eat:eor extinguish, or to authorize the re-
leasing or extlnpulshlng, in whole or in part,
the indebtedness, llabilltp or obllFatlon of
any oorporation or individual, to this State
or to any county or defined subdivision there-
of, or other municipal corporation therein, .
exoept delinquent taxes which have been due for
a period of at least ten years."
It Is lnterestjng to note that this last quoted seotlon was
amended in 1932 by ths addition of the phrase: "exoept de-
linquent taxes whloh have been due for a period of at least
ten years.n The including of the phrase in ths amendment
indicates that the Leplelature did not have the power to
authorize the releasing of delinquent taxes, and therefore
In order to release those over ten years old, It WCS necees-
ary to specially except them.
These two last quoted 4ectlons of the Constitution
have been constN46 in several Instances in whloh the Com-
missioners1 Courts have attempted to conpromise debts and
llabllltles due the county. In the ease of Bland v. Orr,
supra, In nhloh a oounty trecsurer was in default nnd the
ConmissIoners* Court had attempted to oompromlse the claim
against him, the Supreme Court of Texas said:
944 ar8 of the opinion that the Comals3ion-
ers' Court hod not the power to oompromlse the
debt and to dlschargo the llzblllty upon the
bond."
*?:ehevc round no provision in our statutes
whioh fives those courts any authority over obll-
gatlona due the bounty, and, althouph the briefs
.
Hon. George H. Sheppard, January 23, 1939, Pape 4
of oounsel upon this question show oormnend-
able zeal and ablllty, none are therein alted."
In the oaae of Delt'aCounty Y. Blaokburn, 100 Tax.
51, 93 s. a. 419, the Supreme Court of Texas held that Art-
olle III, Seotlon 55, prohibited a Connnissloners'Court irom
oanoelling Interest on obllpatlons given for school land,
and the Court eaidr
"Ii the matter be regarded as the Com-
miaoloners regarded It, the conclusion Is
equally rata1 to his defense. They simply
attempted to release him irod his alterna-
tive oblIe.atIonto pay the whole debt at ,
onoe or to oontlnue to pay Interest at the
rate of 7 per oent, whloh, under the Oonstl-
tutlon, they had not the power to do."
Other oases to the same effeot are Slaughter v.
HardernanOounty, 139 S. W. 802, and Haatland County v.
Davisson, 290 S. Y;. 196, reversed on other grounds In 298
S. X. 268.
The oases dlreotly In point In other states that
we have found hold that a CommIssIonera* Court oannot oom-
promise a disputed tax claIm. Peter v. Parkinson, 83 Ohio
St. 36, 93 N. E. 197, and Loban City Y. Allen (Utah) 44
Pao. (2) 1085.
The eeneral rule Is stated In 3 Cooley on Taxa-
tion, 4th Ed. 2493, as follows:
"Generally tax ofrheas, or boarda of
oounty oomIasIoners, or the like, have no
power to oompromIae a tax, or to release It
wholly or In part, unless speolally authorl-
zed by statute. So, Fhere an assessment hos
beoome final, assessing orrioera have no au-
thority to agree that If the taxpayer pay the
ourrent taxes they would rOTegO OOllOOting
the taxes ror preoeding years."
In view or the above authorities, we believe
that the holdlnp of thls Department on this qUeStiOn on
1-w
.
,- -
.
I :!? ,t
Hon. Ceorce Ii.Sheppard, January 23, 1939, Puge 5
Deoember 7, 1937, was oorreot; and It
opinion that a CommI(laIonere*Court do
thorlty to oompromlss a disputed alaim ror delinquent ad’
ralorem taxea.
Yours very truly
ATTORNEY CENERAL OF TEXAS
AaeIBtant
CCR.lrr
APPROVED :
ATTORNEY OENERAL OF TEXAS
+. '
Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
Combined Opinion