Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1987 )

THE ATTOWSET GENERAL
OF EXAS
September 16, 1987
Honorable David H. Cain Opinion No. JM-787
Chairman
Committee on Transportation Re: Construction of article
Texas House of Representatives 6675a-3(c), V.T.C.S.
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78769
Dear Representative Cain:
You ask the following question:
Does the word “and” in the phrase “pi-operty of and
used exclusively in the service of”, found in
Article 6675a-3(c), mean that if a school district
or other such entity included in the law were to
lease a vehicle, and therefore not own it, it
would be exempt from this article and would
therefore not be required to have exempt license
plates?
Article 6675a-3(c) provides, in part:
owners of motor vehicles, trailers and
semi-trailers which sre the property of and used
exclusively in the service of the United States
Government, the State of Texas, or any county,
city or school district thereof, shall apply
annually to the Department ss provided in Section
3-m of this Act to register all such vehicles,
but shall not be required to pay the registration
fees herein prescribed, provided that affidavit is
made at the time of registration by a person who
has the proper authority that such vehicles are
the property of and used exclusively in the
service of the United States Government, the State
of Texas, or a county, city or school district
thereof, as the case may be.
p. 3719
Honorable David H. Cain - Page 2 (JM-787)
First, we note that you characterize article bb75a-3\c) as
"requiring" vehicles owned and operated by governmental bodiec' to
have exempt license plates. We think that article 6675=-3(c) might be
more accurately characterized as exempting owners of certain vehicles
from payment of registration fees. See V.T.C.S. art. b675a-3aa
(providing for specially designated license plates for exempt
vehicles).
Article b675a-3tcJ states that the owner of a motor vehicle is
exempt from payment of registration fees for that vehicle if the
vehicle is both "the property of" and "used exclusively in the service
of" a governmental body. You suggest that if a governmental body
leased a vehicle from some other entity, the governmental body would
not own the vehicle and could therefore not meet the requirements of
article bb75a-3(c). Because of the way "owner- is defined for
purposes of article 6675e-3, however, we think that analysis is
incorrect.
The statute requiring registration of motor vehicles generally
makes the requirement applicable to the "Owner. " V.T.C.S. art.
6675a-2(a). Consistent with the general statute, article 6675=-3(c)
exempts "owners" from the payment of registration fees. For purposes
of those statutes, the word "owner" is given a broad definition:
"'Owner' means any person who holds the legal title of a vehicle or
who has the legal right of possession thereof, or the legal right of
control of said vehicle." Art. 6675=-1(L). Therefore, a lessee who
has the legal right of possession or control of a vehicle, as the
typical lessee would, would be an "owner" for purposes of article
6675=-3(c) even though the lessee would not have legal title to the
vehicle. _See Attorney General Opinion O-5381 (1943).
The article 6675=-3(c) exemption applies to "lolwners of motor
vehicles . . . which are the property of and used exclusively in the
service of" certain governmental bodies. (Emphasis added.)
Consequently, the exemption could apply to a vehicle leased by a
governmental body 8s long as a leased vehicle that is "owned" by a
governmental entity is also "the property of" that governmental entity
for purposes of article bb75a-3(c). In other words, to determine
1. Article 6675=-3(c) applies to "the United States Government,
the State of Texas, or any county, city or school district thereof."
For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to those entities as
"governmental bodies." Our use of the term "governmental bodies" is
not intended as a comment on the scope of article bb75a-3cc)
exemption. See Attorney General Opinions WW-487 (1958); M-1033
(1971). -
p. 3720
Honorable David l-l.Cain - Page 3 (JM-787)
whether the article 6675=-3(c) exemption can apply to a leased
vehicle, we must determine whether the legislature intended that the
phrase "property of" be defined as broadly as "owner" or whether the
article 6675=-3(c) requirement that a vehicle be "the property of" a
governmental body means that a governmental body must have legal title
to the vehicle. We conclude that if a governmental body is the
"owner" of a vehicle, the vehicle is "the property of" the
governmental body.
It is the "owner" of a vehicle who is responsible for registering
it, and it is the "owner" who may avail himself of the exemption from
registration fees provided for in article 6675=-3(c). Therefore, if.s
governmental body "owned" a vehicle by virtue of a lease agreement,
the governmental body -- not the lessor -- would have to P=Y
registration fees if the vehicle was not also "the property of" the
governmental body. Attorney General Opinion O-5381 (1943). Such a
result would thwart the apparent purpose of article 6675a-3(c), which
is to exempt governmental bodies from paying registration fees for
vehicles used for public purposes. & Tex. Const. art. XI, s9
("property of counties, cities and towns, owned and held only for
public purposes . . . shall be exempt from forced sale and taxation);
Attorney General Opinion V-955 (1949) (registration fee for motor
vehicles is a tax); Lower Colorado River Authority v. Chemical Bank
and Trust Co., 190 S.W.2d 48 (Tex. 19451 (government taxing itself
would be a senseless process).
Furthermore, both the terms "owner" and the "property of" have
been in article 6675a-3(c) since its enactment in 1929, Acts 1929,
41st Leg., 2d C.S., ch. 88, at 172, and we find no case or opinion
that suggests that the two terms are not coextensive. In Attorney
General Opinion WW-487 (19581 this office wrote:
LIln order to qualify for issuance of fee-exempt
license plates, the following requirements must be
present:
1. The agency seeking the exemption must
have been crested by the laws of the State of
Texas and be functioning pursuant thereto.
2. The agency must have been crested for
the purpose of performing governmental
functions or duties.
3. The vehicles for which exemption is
sought must be owned by such agency.
4. The vehicles must be used exclusively
by the agency. (Emphasis added.)
p. 3721
Honorable David H. Cain - Page 4 (``-787)
The opinion made no suggestion that the statutory requirement that the
vehicle be "the property of" a governmental body was in addition to
the "ownership" requirement. See also State Highway Cosssission v.
Harris Count Flood Control Dist., 247 S.W.2d 135 (Tex. Civ. App. -
Galveston 1952, writ ref'd).
We conclude, therefore, that a governmental body covered by
article 6675=-3(c) is exempt from motor vehicle registration fees for
a vehicle if it is the "owner" of the vehicle in question and the
vehicle is used exclusively in the service of the governmental body.
SUMMARY
If an entity listed in article 6675=-3(c)
leases a motor vehicle and thereby becomes its
"owner" as that term is defined in article
6675=-1(L), the entity is exempt from the
registration fee for a motor vehicle if the
vehicle in question is used exclusively in the
service of an entity listed in article 6675a-3(c).
-
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
MARY KELLER
Executive Assistant Attorney General
JUDGE ZOLLIE STEAKLEY
Special Assistant Attorney General
RICK GILPIN
Chairman, Opinion Committee
Prepared by Sarah Woelk
Assistant Attorney General
p. 3722