Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
I$onorable John 0. Marburger
County Attorney
Fayette a0paty
La Grange, Texas
Dear Sir:
1939, In whloh you reque
rore made of
tire, Ino. base
or ~hiuh YOU r0
u oonoluded
bent has r.endered Opinion No. O-1342,
rable E. W. Xasterllng, county Attorney,
Uaont, Texas, In whioh a question similar
in your letter we8 answered. This
ioles 734& and 7347 of the Revised Civil
aoted fraudulently or h+d adopted a fundamentally wrong mthod
of assessment. A copy of? this opinion is enclosed for your
further lnepeotlon .
::'eBave examined with Interest the petition of the
Fayette Eleotrio CooperatZv&, Inc. whioh me filed before the
Eonorable John 0. marburger, Page 2
Comalesionem~ Court of Fayette Couuty. There ie no oon-
tontion in the petition that the Btatutory nmthod of asmen-
mati and of giving noLOtfce to appear before the Commleaioners*
Court or the Board of $qwllzation was not oomplied wlth.
Apparently appellant 18 badng ltm petition for re-
OQW&W the asrossnant OS thi6 property on rour grounds. It
lr naoemary that eaoh of these grounds be uonaldarad in the
light or the rule bat down by the Supreme Court of Taxaa ln
the ease of State vn. Xallet Land and Cattle Co., 88 2. W.
(2d) 471, a8 followr:
*The rule haui beau repeatedly
annouuoed that, in the absenoe or fraud
or lll6gallty. the aotlon of a board of
equalization upon a partioular ammso-
ment is final; and, furthermore, that
auoh valuation willnot be set aside
merely upon a showing that the aanm ie
In raot exces8i~e. If tha board rtdiy
and honestly endeavore to ffr a fair
and juet valuation ror taxing ~urpotm~
a a&stake on itr part, under euoh olroura-
etaarms, is not rrubjsot to review by the
oourto. Texas b Paoffio Ry. Co. v. City
of 21 Paso ~(Tex. Sup.) 83 S. W. (26)
245; Rowland V. City of Tyler (Tex. CO&
App.) 6 S. W. (2d) 756: Druesdow v. Raker
(Tex. Corn. App.) 229 3. W. 493, Duak v.
Pealez, 74 Tex. 258, ll 5. W. llll; State
v.. Chioago, R. I. h 0. Ry. Co. (Tex. Corn.
App.) 863 8. W. 249; 8uuday Lake Ircin Co.
v. Wcbfleld, 247 U.S. 350, 38 S. Ct. 496,
62 L. Xd. 1154; However, the rule haa b&en
declared that If a bo+rd of equalization
adopts a ma6hod that Is illegal arbitrary,
or fundazmntally wrong, the de&ion of
.the board nay be attacked and set aside."
Firat, it is alleged in the petition that the essese-
xwmt waa made arbitrarily by the Comnleelonera* Court. ACOOrd-
fag to the racte submitted in the opinion request, the property
of this oorporation was assessed at a valuation leas than other
proparty In the mime oounty. If thls 1s truqthe oorporation
hae not been injured aad would have no right to have thls prop-
wtp re-aewaaied. If thle were not true, .It would be neoeeeary
170
Xonorabla John C. karburger, Rage 3
for the appellant to ahou~that the Gommissloner8* Court had
acted fraudulently before it would be entitled to have it8
property re-asoessed under this that allegation.
The rreoond allegation in the appellant*8 petition
is that the original as8eoament was made without uelng or
taking Into uonalderation the proper method of a8sessment.
Ii the SaotB are a8 stated in the letter that appellant*8
property wa8 assessed at a value lower than other property
In the aounty then thI8 allegation would avail them nothing.
Bowever, oven assuming that appellant's prop8rty was assessed
at a value greater than oorrespondlng property in the oounty,
than under the above allegation, it would be neoeasery,for
it to ahow that the method of aeaeosment adopted by the Com-
mI8oIonerev Court was fundamentally wrong and suah as would
allow a dietrict court of thie State to eet aside the original
as8888me~t.
The third allegation in appellant's petition is
t&t the Comlselonorag Court did not seek to asoertein the
aotual reasonable oash market value a8 provided by Artiole
72ll or the Revised civil Statutss. Artiole 72l.l of Vernon*8
Annotated 8tatuts8 reads as follows:
WZiereafter when any person, firm or
oorporation renders his, their or its
property in thI8 State for taxation to
any tax assessor, and makes oath as to
the kind, aharauter, quality and quantity
or suoh proplrrty, and the Bald offioer
aooeptlng said rendition from such person,
rlrn or corporation of such property is
satiefled that It is oorreotly and proper-
ly valued aooordlng to the reasonable
oash market value oi euoh property on the
.market at the time of it8 rendition, he
shall list the same accordingly; but, If
the esseseior is ratlsfled that tha value
Is below the reasonable aash market value
of such property, he shall ut,onoe place
on said rendition oppoalte saoh piece of
property so rendered an anaunt equal to
the reasonable oash market value of auoh
roper60 at the time of its rendition, and
1 f such property shall be found to have
no market value by suoh officer, then at
HOnorable John C. Maiburgr, Bag8 4
Such SU!S 98 said OffiOer Shari deem th8
real or lntrinslo talus 0r the property;
and ir the person llatlng such property
or the owner thereof Is not aatlsfled
with the value plaoed on the property by
the a88ea8or, he shall 80 WJtiiy the
a88688Or, aqd if desiring 80 t0 do paak8
oath before the a8tse88orthat the vdlua-
tion 80 .iixed by said orriicar on said
property 18 excessive; suoh offloer to .
furnish euoh rsnditlon, together with
his valuation thereon sad the oath of,
auoh person, ilrm or otrioar 0s any oorpora-
tion, ff any euqh oath.has been made, to
the 00ncnl8810rLer8' aoupt 0s the oountp 'In
whloh said rendition w&s made, whloh oourt
shall hear evidence and determine the true
value of such propmty on January First, 19
(here give year for which e8ses6memt is mad$
as la herein provided; ouah orfloer or oo~rt
8halltaks into W3~8ld8ra~iOikwhat said
property oould hare b86ll sold for any time
within Sir months n8Xt before the SirSt
day 0s Jamary 0s the y8ar for whloh the
property la rendered."
hu examination of the above quoted article indioatea
that certain notioe is neasssqry to be given'to a taxpayer
before a hearing is held by the Commis810wrst Court aotlng
es a Board ot Fiquallzatlon. There is nothing in eppell8nt*s
petition whiah alleges that this notice Was not'glven and
that the hearln(J was sot regular in all. of its details. or
ooUrs6, the facts as set out in your letter that the aorpore-
tiOn'8 prOpeJ?ty 0168 aSSeS86d at a V8lU6 less than Other prop-
erty in the ooUnty would nullify this third allegation. How-
ever, uuder any situation it would be neoessary tor appellants
iutder this allegation to prove that'ite property had been
aSSesSed et a greater Vah8 than Other prOptU+y iU the BOUnty
and that this es3e88ment was a result of fraudulent eotiOn on
the pa Of the CO;pmi88iOu8rS * court or cr result 0r their hay-
iIIg used a,tundamentally wrong method of aS888Em8&.
AQ~8lbIlt'S &St and fOUS'th all8gatiOn'lil its peti-
tion is that all other property We8 a8ssssed at alxty (t%$)
par sent of its reasonable cash niarke& value while the property
4.72
honorable Johu a. Jifarburger, Page 3
of that corporation wa8 arbltrarlly, unlawfully aud without
ju8tftiCatiOn and WithOUt the a88 Of the. Pl-Op- LC8thOd Of
68868smen6, a88688Od at a prlae or veluatioa in i3xo888 0s
its eatnal oaeh market value. A?p8llMt cctit8nds that this
is ololatlve of the 14th &wn6.aient or the Federal Conetltu-
tion. Of 00ur86, this allegation is based on a Sac6 whloh
is dircratlyin cOntllO6 with the Paata sub%ltted In your
latter. Thir fourth allegation seem8 to be a "catch all"
allegation. This allegation see88 to inolude aeoh of the
other three. It is the opixiion Of this DOpaitant, there-
fOr8, that before the Fayette Elsatric Cooperative, Ino.
OluI StU4tafn it8 QO8itiOI.I Of hIWing it8 prior 8BS88808ut
opened and its property rS-as8088ed it will be neoassary
to prove what they have alleged in their rourth allegation
- that is, that Its roQ8rty wss 888eSSed at a value greater
thau other oorrespon d! ng property in the.couuty and that such
aa8888amnt was a result either of rraudulen.eatlon on the
part 0s the County Comlssfoaer8* Court or that said court
in making the aSSe88iiWll% had adopted a fundameutally wrong
method.
We trust that the above information will 88m8 a8
a basis for the OOuSidWatiOB oKthe applloation o? Fayette
Bleotrlc Qooperatlve, Ino. to have its property re-aa8asa8d.
Yours vary truly
ATTOREfmOEZ?ERALOF TEXAS
BC:RS APZOVEDNOV 17, 1939
5%--L&4.--
ATTORNEY G- OF TEXAS