Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1968 )


Menu:
  •            THE       ATTORNES          GENERAL
    OF   TExpis
    January 10, 1968
    Honorable Robert S. Calvert
    Comptroller of Public Accounts
    Austin, Texas
    Opinion No. M-188
    Re:   Whether certain insurance
    companies whkch pay a gross Jo.
    premium receipts tax are sub-
    ject to Limited sales and use
    'Dear Mr. Calvert:                    tax.
    You have requested an opinion as to whe'thertwo certain
    insurance companies which pay a,gross premium receipts tax are
    also liable for the limited sales, excise and use tax.1 The
    first company writes fire and casualty insurance and is subject
    to the gross premium receipts tax imposed by Article 7064.2 The
    se~condoompany writes life insurance and is subj.ect'tothe gross
    premium receipts tax imposed by Article 4769.3
    Our opinion is that 'each of these insurance companies
    is subject to the sales and use tax.
    Article 7064 imposes a gross premium receipts tax on
    certain insurance companies other than life, and contains the
    following relevant provisions:
    "No occupation tax shall be levied on
    insurance companies herein subject+ to the
    gross premium receipt tax by any county, ~'
    city or town. . . . The taxes aforesaid
    shall constitute all taxes collectable under
    1.   Chap. 20, Title 122A, Taxation-General, V.A.C.S.
    2.   All references to Articles are to Vernon's Civil Statutes.
    3.   Art. 4769 is shown at page 484 of,Volume 14A, V.A.C.S. (1963).
    -893-
    Ron. Robert S. Calvert, page 2 (&188)
    the laws of this State against any
    such insurance carriers . . . No
    other tax shall be levied ox conected
    Earn any insurance carrier by the state,
    county, city or any town, but this law
    shall not be construed to prohibit the
    levy and collection of state, county and
    municipal taxes upon the real and personal
    property of such carrier. . . .'I (Emphasis added .I
    Article 4769 imposes a gross premium receipts tax,,on
    certain insurance companies and contains th,efollowing relevant
    provisions:
    and municipal ad valorem taxes upon real
    or personal properties of such.;,insurance
    organizations." (Emphasis added.)
    Each of the companies claim to be exempt from the sales
    and use tax by reason of the provisions in both Article 7064
    and 4769 to the effect that only the gross premium taxes and
    the other taxes specifically named in said Articles may be
    imposed upon the companies. We do not agree with this      ..'
    contention.
    Our construction of these Articles is that these pro-
    visions exempt the companies covered by them from,
    (1) any other occupation, privilege or
    franchise tax which might be imposed upon
    them by reason of their engaging in any type
    of insurance business subjected to the gross
    premium receipts taxes by either of these
    Articles:
    -894-
    Hon. Robert S. Calve&,   page 3 (M-188)
    (2) the other specific taxes named in
    said Articles, none of which relate either
    primarily or exclusively to either insurance
    companies or the business of writing insur-
    ance.
    The exempt language simply means that the comp,anies
    which pay the gross premium receipts taxes are not subject
    to any other types of occupation, privilege, or franchise
    taxes.
    Our Supreme Court in Hassell v. Commonwealth.Casualtv
    & Ins. Co., 
    143 Tex. 353
    , 18hS.W.2d s-.)17. _-_
    919 119451.
    .--.-, wherein
    .._______.
    f he court considered similar language of'section 19 kf
    Artic le 4859f which read,
    "Except as herein expressly provided,
    noinsurance law of this State shall apply
    to any corporation operating under this Act,
    and no law hereafter enacted shall apply to
    them unless they be expressly designated
    therein."
    The Court then said,
    "The provisions of the foregoing sec-
    tions do not exempt mutual companies from
    the law of respondeat superior, or from
    y of the principles of general law. ,The
    ZFovisions referring to 'insurance law"
    do not have the effect to place the subject
    companies beyond the pale of the general
    law of agency. Calhoun et al. v. The Mac-
    cabees, Tex.Com. App., 
    241 S.W. 101
    ." (Em-
    phasis added.)
    This same statutory provision was again construed to
    the same effect in the later case of McCoy Undertaking Co.
    v. American Cas. & Life Co., 
    248 S.W.2d 311
    , 313 (Tex.Civ.App.
    1952, error dism.).
    This was the rationale of our holding in Attorney General's
    Opinion No. C-590 (1966).
    -895-
    Hon. Robert S. Calvert, page 4 (M-188)
    Our Supreme Court has recognized the similarity of
    the gross premium receipts tax and the franchise tax. The
    Court has stated,
    "Insurance companies required to pay
    the tax imposed by Article 7064 are speci-
    fically exempted from payment of franchise
    taxes. Article 12.03 V.A.T.S. Tax.-Gen.
    The gross premiums tax like the franchise
    tax is a charge which corporations subject
    thereto must pay for the privilege of en-
    gaging in business in Texas, and the levy
    is made annuallv. . . ."
    State v. Nationii Lloyds, 
    368 S.W.2d 765
    , 766
    (Tex.Sup. 1963).
    We do not believe that the Legislature intended that
    insurance companies operating under either Article 7064 or
    Article 4769 should be exempt from general tax laws which
    are not related primarily to operating as an insurance com-
    pav . For example, an insurance company would not be exempt
    from paying gasoline taxes on gasoline used by company auto-
    mobiles, or state sales tax on items of furniture, equipment
    and supplies purchased for use in the business.
    The sales and use tax is wholly different in its'nature
    from the gross premium receipts taxes paid by the insurance
    companies in question which are in the nature of franchise,
    privilege or occupation taxes. The sales and use tax is a
    transaction tax. Calvert v. Canteen Company, 
    311 S.W.2d 556
    ,
    558 (Tex.Sup. 19637. Neither does the sales and use tax bear
    any particular relationship to the business of insurance.
    On the other hand, the sales and use tax is a general
    tax which provides in Article 20.04 the only exemptions from
    its coverage. These exemptions are specific in their nature
    and we find nothing in'them which exempts any type of insur-
    ance company from their terms. The very completeness of the
    taxing scheme as set out in the sales and use tax act, to-
    aether with the clear, specific and limited exemptions from
    that Act, support our-opinion. State v. MauritzlWells Co.,
    
    141 Tex. 634
    , 175 S.W.Zd 238, 242-243 (1943).
    Hon. Robert S. Calvert, paqe 5 (M-188)
    SUMMARY
    '5
    Insurance companies subj&ct to the'
    gross premium receipts taxes imposed by L
    Articles 7064 and 4769, Vernon's,Civil
    Statutes, are also subject to the Limited
    Sales, Excise and Use Tax imposed by Chap-
    ter 20 of Title 122A, Taxation-General ,of
    said statutes.
    WEA:tb
    Prepared by W. E. Allen
    Assistant Attorney General
    ,APPROVED:
    OPINION ..COFIMITTEE
    Hawthorne Phillips, Chairman,
    Kerns B. Taylor, Co-Chairman
    Robert Davis
    Ralph Rash
    Brandon Bickett
    STAFF LEGAL ASSISTANT
    A. J. Carubbi, Jr.
    -897-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: M-188

Judges: Crawford Martin

Filed Date: 7/2/1968

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017