Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1981 )


Menu:
  •  .      L
    The Attorney              General of Texas
    C4arch   16,   1981
    MARKWHITE
    Attorney General
    Honorable Bob Bullock                      Opinion No. NW-3 0 4
    Comptroller of Public Accounts
    LBJ State Office Building                  Re: Collection of warrants for a
    Austin, Texas 78774                        city’s share of sales and use tax
    revenues
    Dear Mr. Bullock:
    You have requested our opinion regarding the collection of warrants
    for a city’s share of the sales and use tax. Pursuant to article 1066c,
    V.T.C.S., the comptroller is required quarterly to remit to each municipal
    corporation which imposes the one percent sales and use tax its portion of
    revenue collected.    In order to avoid the delays resulting from use of the
    mails, several municipalities have appointed an Austin bank as their agent
    for purposes of collecting the warrants from the comptroller, presenting
    them to the state treasurer for payment, and transmitting          the funds
    collected to each city’s depository bank. The state treasurer has refused to
    honor such warrants endorsed by the bank. You first ask whether a city may
    appoint an Austin bank as its agent for the purpose of collecting its
    allocation of local tax revenues.
    It is well gtablished that a home rule city may exercise any power not
    prohibited by the constitution or by statute, Bland v. City of Taylor, 
    37 S.W.2d 291
    (Tex. Civ. App. - Austin 1931),afrd, 
    67 S.W.2d 1033
    (Tex. 1934),
    so long as such power is expressly granted or implied in its charter, or is
    necessary “to make effective the objects and purposes of the [municipalI
    corporation.” Amstater v. Andreas, 
    273 S.W.2d 95
    , 97 (Tex. Civ. App. - El
    Paso 1954, writ rePd n.r.e.). See City of Corpus Christi v. Unitarian Church,
    
    436 S.W.2d 923
    , 927 (Tex. Civxpp. - Corpus Christi 1968, writ rePd n.r.e.j.
    See also article 1175, V.T.C.S.
    A bank, on the other hand, is expressly empowered:
    [tlo act as a fiscal agent or transfer agent and in
    such capacity to receive and disburse money and to
    transfer registered and countersigned certificates of
    stock, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness.
    Article 342-301(b), V.T.C.S. See Citizens National Bank v. Hill, 
    505 S.W.2d 246
    (Tex. 1974). In our opin=,    it is clear that a home rule city, unless
    p. 969
    Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Two         (MW-304)
    prohibited by its charter, may appoint an Austin bank as its agent for the purpose of
    collecting its allocation of local tax revenues. Likewise, the appointee bank is not
    prohibited from acting in such capacity.
    Furthermore,   the bank, as agent, is empowered to endorse the warrant on behalf of
    the city:
    An indorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and
    on the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to
    become a part thereof.
    Section 3.202(b), Texas Business & Commerce Code.
    A signature may be made by an agent or other representative,    and
    his authority to make it may be established as in other cases of
    representation.   No particular form of appointment is necessary to
    establish such authority.
    Section 3.403(a), Texas Business & Commerce Code.
    You also ask whether the transmittal of the allocated tax revenues by the Austin
    bank to the city depository bank would constitute branch banking by the depository bank in
    contravention of article XVI, section 6 of the Texas Constitution.  We note that the funds
    are not deposited in the Austin bank, but instead are merely sent to the depository bank in
    another city by wire transfer. See First National Bank v. Dickinson, 
    396 U.S. 122
    (1969);
    Jackson v. First National Bank, 
    430 P.2d 1200
    (5th Cir. 1970). From the facts you have
    stated, the agreement is clearly between the city and the Austin bank, and it cannot be
    said that the Austin bank is acting as a branch or representative    of the city depository
    bank. So lorg as the latter is not a party to that agreement, we do not believe that any
    question of branch banking would arise.
    SUMMARY
    Unless its charter provisions prohibit its doing so, a home rule
    city may appoint an Austin bank as its agent for the purpose of
    collecting its allocation of sales and use tax revenues.
    MARK      WHITE
    Attorney General of Texas
    JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
    First Assistant Attorney General
    P.   970
    *   .
    Honorable Bob Bullock - Page Three     (``-304)
    RICHARD E. GRAY III
    Executive Assistant Attorney General
    Prepared by Rick Gilpin
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMlTTEE
    Susan L. Garrison, Chairman
    David B. Brooks
    Bob Gammage
    Rick Gilpin
    C. Robert Heath
    Tom Pollan
    P.   971