Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1951 )

Auguet 20, 1951
ffon. Robert bl. Allen Opinion No, V-1245
Oount Attorney
Rusk i ounty Be; DoUS 8 preolnot b
Henderson, Texas tit from taxes 00
~leoted rop farm-t
mexket roads in p
gortfon to the TQ
of the county in
prixinct; is b t6i
payer whoee anly
able property is
from, the tax qua1
to vote at the ta
Dear Sir: election?
Your requeert for an opinion,relates to 6 poa~
pored eleotion in Rusk OoWty to le+y, (assess, and.e&
lest ad vslorem taxes not to exceed thirty cents 02)
each One ffunilrsd Dollars valuation for farm-to-market
and lateral roads pursuant to Article 7048a of Vernenls
Givll Statutes end prerents ‘for determination two qum-
&ions rvhloh may be paraphrased as follows:
I. Under Seation 6, of Artiole 7046a
would, Ooftuniasionsral Pfecinot No. 1 ox? Rusk
C.ounty; ,wh,ioh has approximately 80 per cent
of the county valuation, get the benefit of
80 plr sent of the taxes collected if this
*Laetion carries?
21 Under Seotioa 7 ot Artic3.e 704ga,
would a property owner whose only taxable
property is a residential homestead valued
lt less than $3,000 be qualified to vote in
suoh election eince his property would be
exem#t from th tax levied under Article
7QIk?
iirticle 704&t, V. 0. S., provides la part:
“SW. 2. From an4 after i?8nuary 1, 1951,
the soreral uountieb et Wa Strtc be and they
am here8g m0mMnad to lay ~rf~ne and aol-
le0t d valorsin tax*8 upon 8 f proparty with-
.,’
Ron. Robert M, Allen, pa&e 2 (V-la0)
.
in their respsative bowldariss r0r oouaty
except the firat Three Thoummd
S~“~.$~ 000) velue of rerib0ntlal holae-
staads, not ‘to exceed thirty cent8 (3Og 1 on
oooh One Hun&red Dollars ($100) valuation,
in addition to all other ad valorem taxer
auttlorizrd by the Constitution of the $t&o
provided the revenue therefrom ah&U b% use 6,
as provided in this bet for the conetrutltio8
and malntenrnce of Farm-to-Karl:et ucd Latanil,
lwldr .or for Flood Control and for theaI Wo
(2) purposes only.
*Sea. 6, Both the ?srmto-&rket aab.
Lateal Road Fund Find the Flood Owtrol FurQ
ah&l1 be exrmnded so as to equitably PintaiSr
ute a% nearly as possible th% benefits do-
rived from such expenditurss to the varloua
Commissionsre~ precinots in accrordance ulth
the taxable values therein.
n
“Sec. 7. Before any county sh%ll levy,
atas and oolleo t the tax provided for h%r%ia
the quo&ion shall by t&r Comiesionere Court
oi the oountp be submitted to a Vote of the
qualified property tupaying voters of suoh
oounty at an election called for that purpors,~
either on said Commissioners Courts’ owh mo-
tion, or upon p’stition of ten per oent (logl} of
the qualified property taxpaying voters of IBWI
oounty BI ehovm by the returns of th% laet g%n=
era1 elvmtion .' . . . .n
Article 6740, V. 0. 8., la a8 folLow%r
wTh%aommiesiansre oourt #h*ll %e% that
the road, and bridge fund of ttdP oounty is
ju&loiously and equitably expelNed on the
roads and bridges of their oounty, and, aa
nearly as ths condition and neoesrity or the
roads will per&t, it shall, be ergend Zn
%%oh county commissioner% pracin%t in pro-
port&a to the amount colleoted in suoh pro-
rino t . Money uasd in building permanent
ma68 shall first 8 used only oa t%rra! ef
880086-alaw roads, %nd on thoscs, Wh$o& rha%x
h8vs the right or : ay tumirhed ,i?@e ot 00i3t.
to make ae,atraight a road aa is prsatioable
,%md having ths greatert bonue off%?& by the
‘oitizem% or wmoy, labor or otkw propwty.~
t29 3’6%i56, 103 ‘8. I.
held ,that
then ir r&h*’
8 the oommtrrio,aw8
oourt 80, divide thq lload and, bridge ryul ao,o,ord$ngcta
my fixed mtheemtioal’ itinntlla, .&?I& .yippdi%Wi i&k@ in
r(raaoe tor thopurposo at: being rkpdsd ‘In, ax& &tan
gruoinot.* The oourt rurther stated:
._
” the aommiarioners oourt murk. glum
erteot ’t; &id artiols 6740 exoept when the
necessities of.the roads and bridger require
a departure from it., That article requires
that the road and bridge runds or all oountis6
&al& be, judi,oiossly and equitably e~xp,ended,
ft f&thar requires that ,suirh funds shall,
as nearly as the condition and necessity of the
roads will permit be expended in each oommla-
sionsrs preoinot in proportion to the amount
eolleoted in auoh preoinot. The dominant pum
pose oi this statute seema to be to require that
the road cuad bridge fund shall be expended in
oaoh aommlrrfoners preoinat in proportion to the
amount oolleotsd therein. In this regard the
statute means that eaoh precinct shell r&m
facie be entitle to its own funds, and f n the
absenoe of any reasons to the contrary they,
should be so divided and expended.
the duty to expend the funds inthe ````$~on
above meatj.oned is not an absolutely inflexible
one. Thle is evident from the fact that th8
dominant purpose or the statute is qualified to
the extent that the court by olear implication
is ivrn the right to expend the road and bridge
Sun8 in a proportion other than in the propor-
tlon in which they are collected when the ooadl*
tion8 of the roads in the ,respeotive preoinotn
oreatee a ne6aclrity 50 to do. Ne think, however,
c that t&e requirement to expand the fund in the
proportion mentioned oannot be avoided exoept
in oaaea’.or oanaitions of neoessity. Of course,
tl)b 08tUai68IOnOr8 sourt ha8 tb*.right to axor-
oi88 Ztti sound jaA&ment In dstsrmlning the ne-
srrrsity; b,ut it banhot act arbitrarily in raw
gard to such m&Lt%~.~
ALSO see Garland , 114 S, W. 28 302
d AtW’ Gen. 0~.
,,’ ”
.
Hon. Robert M. Allen, page 4 (V-1245)
Seotion 6 of Article 7048a directs that tlu
taxes collected for farmto-market and lateral road
purposes ahall be expended so a6 to equitably aietrl-
but6 benefits as nearly as possible to.the vararious
preolncts in accordance with the taxable values there-
Therefore in anawer to your first question
??our opinion’that Preoinot No. 3, would be entillLtto
the amount of taxes collected therein for rarm-to-
market, and lateral road purposes fP the comissionersf
oourt in the exeroise of its discretion determinea that
the need in Precinct No. 1 rquire? that taxes so ool-
leoted be expended in the precinct,
Passing to your aeoond question, Section ?
of ‘&+ticle 70486 .provides for a $3,000.00 exemption ‘&m
rsaidsntlal homaataade. In Attorney General’s Oplniwr
V-1144 (19511, it,waa stated that *the $3,000 residence
homestead exemption provided in Seotion l-a, Article
VIII, Constitution of Texas, applies to such county
taxes ss may be levied for farm-toGmarket roads or for
rlood oontrol under eaid ,oonstitutional,proviaion, but
not to other county taxes.*1
In other words, the exemption in Seotlcm l-a
of Article VIII applies only to a valuation of $3,900
whioh is ,oonfined to oounty taxes levied for farm&o-
market and lateral roads all other taxes for oounty
purposes not being affeotea by the exemption. The M-
uiwmont oontalned in Seotion 7 of Artiole 70466 18
8:he&
” all voters be qualitled property taxpaying voters
of such county*
You ask whether a voter whose only taxable
proparty is a,homestead valued at less than $3,000,00
is a property taxpaying voter within the meaning’ of tha
law.
1, Artiole 7046a V. 0. 15. (IL B, 107, Acts 51at Leg.,
R, $. X949, oh, 4&, p. 8491, is the enabling legiela-
t&on vrhloh oarrisd into effect the provisions of the
eosirtitutional amandlzient proposed by House Joint Rsao-
lutlon 24, adopted id the 194g General Election, the
name being Sention l-a of Article VIII of the Constitu-
tiOA Or %3X68. Both provide a .$3,000.00 exemption.
Eoa. EIobert M. Allen, page 5 (V-1245)
There is no requlreumt that the taxen mWt
be no tually ' paid, but 14 is onlf required that suah
aw3 .itied electors cwn taxabl;erc erty whioh has beon ,,,
,o; taxation. e amt. Art. VT. Sea,
xi&,&&, 95 S. W. ‘26 149 (Tex., Civ. Appgc
*The point before us turna upon the quee-
tion of’ whether or not property ha8 been ren-
d8red for taxation, when it haa been placed
u II the roll8 by the a8seosor under the pro-
‘cp”riooe
~ of law named, when the owner has ror
any,onuse failei to make the list, swear to it
and furnish it to the assessor. This is true
because Art. 2955a above quoted, provides a8
a ‘requisite to toting in such eleotiona as the
one before us thrlt only q,ualified voters who
own property in the described distriot, who
have~duiy rendered the same for taxation,shall
participate.
“If the assessnznt made by the assessor
is a legal rendition in point of law, then
, the s$rit of the statute hns been :;let and
he should be allowed to vote, otherwise he
should not . He believe t.!lut since either t?eeno
of forming a basis for the enforcer,ient of the
collection of the tax a,:air.rt the oT::ner ani his
property ccoonpl~shed the ~-I,).‘:c. rr:;sult, th.e per-
mi~ssion by the owner for tbc :‘:::st:eaor to :,,a!ce
the esaeasnent as provided b;: lew, is er;i:i.va-
Lent to a rendition by him, by neons of the
statutory provisions first ;+ven. ‘#e therefore
hold that so much CM the s1,stutnry provisions
which prescribe ho.:; iroi,lerty shall. be renr!er%?d
,/- for t.exea~ by the 0’QW, by listin:, , sr!rerjrin,?:
to it and furni.shin$:, to tile assessor, l.s i?ircc-
tory; ,it; carrier with it no :?enulty for having
+
faSl& and provides another legal r:leans for
% o6116otinp: the tax, %:j.,enhr, does fail. Ir (+.e
..: ere cor&ect in these oonoluslona, the oymer ha8
t,$uly .P&dered 1 his property for taxes when it is
.,. .!
.’ placed on the rolls by the assessor in a legal
amao?, with the implied per!nisr.ion of the owner,
t, prcierence to some other means provided.”
.
s00tt0n 3a or hti0aO VI, atw:twa 0r
prorlder ,:
when till 6iboti0~ 18 hda bl w aaPntl
. . ..for the purporr of isro%ng bond8 or,ottb*c
wise lending em&it, or rxpoadin~: money or
assuming any debt, only qualfilied sf@Otoru
who own taxable property in the . . . aouaQ?
wh6re suob election is hald and who
iak’duly ~randared the same for tdion,
shall be quallfiad to vets . , ra
Ths Collstitution Stsslt Wine, the qw*31sio&
the Legi?Laturs ir without
thaw ~*q&wnenk.
(‘Per. C&Y. APP. 1932,
, 127 Te+ 159, 299 5. W. 221
.I
The question, then is narrowed to a de%or- /”
ndnationof whsther SectIon $8 of Art1oY.s VT require@
that the voter own property whioh would bo aubjmb #
the~tu irtpomd am a result of a faronbk rote at tg,
elootion*
,Seot&on 3~ af Artlole VI preaorlbee geneml
qadiflaattonr ror rottw fn kn rlwvtllon for “* Hrn,
ma4pr “pao applloability of them ooartitutiona T qu&
Wioattona tr not aeprndent upoa a dlroot lirbllitf of
From these oases it is seen that the appli-
cability of these constitutioml qualifica’tions ir not
restricted to elections at which the question voted cm
is the levying of a t&x on pro rty. Conversely wx)
think the ConetLtutim dode no F rebtF’i6t the quailfled
toters in an eleotion at which the qu&etion voted on is
th& levying of a tax to those takpayers who would Lnour
a llclbility for paymentof the ta+ The owner of a
nridential h-stead valued at lass than &,OOO, while
uwpteb rrom the paymeht or any tax @WW~ aa a msuZt
l. .:
.
/
Hon. Robert Ii. Allen, pegs 7 (V-1245)
.,/
of thiselection is liable for other county te~es.
#Ye are of the opinion that he “owns taxable property
in the cowaty” within the meaning of Seation 3e of
Article VI,
The Constitution does not reouirs that the
tax08 bs actually paid. It rsqalrcs only that the
sleator own taxable nroperty which has been duly rsn-
dared for taxation. -CamDb6il v. ‘Jr&h
Public Utilities Car;,. v. Holland. snp~eendI%%
voter owns property vrhich has been duly rcndcred for
coUnty taxetian hc t:itititS the constitutional recrulrs-
rmnt and is entitled to vote in an election to detcr-
mine if a tax for farm-to-market and lateral roads
ehould be levied.
A county precinct wogl&, be sn-
titled to the amount of taxes colleoted
therein for farm-to-market and lateral,
roads if the ooMmissionersl oourt, in tb,e
exerolss of its sound discretion, deter-
mines that the need for road improvor,ent
in thrit ?er+.iciLLar precinct requires the
sxncnditure of tha taxes collected there-
A property owner whose only
taxable property is a residential home-
stead valued at less then $3,000.00
would be qualified to vote in an elec-
tron to determine if a tax should be
levied en-3 colltc ted i’or l'arm-to-marke t
and letcrel ruads, ‘;‘oxas publio Utili-
tics C~ry. v. Holland 123 S. ‘!!. 2d 102g
vex. Civ. Ap2. error dism. ) ;
Oaapbrll v. Wrisht, 95 9. 7!. 2d 149
(‘hx. Clr. App. 5936).
i
. .’