Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1980 )


Menu:
  •                        The Attorney                General of Texas
    August   4,   1980
    MARK WHITE
    Attorney General   Honorable Bill D. Jackson, CPA                Opinion No.   MW-217
    County Auditor
    County of Galveston                           Re: Whether a claim for dalin-
    Galveston, Texas 77550                        quent tax attorney     commissions
    may be paid out of Farm-to-Market
    Lateral Tax Fund revenues
    Dear Mr. Jackson:
    You asked whether a County            Auditor may approve     a claim for
    delinquent tax attorney commissions          out of Farm-to-Market    Lateral Tax
    Fund revenue.
    The Farm-to-Market and Lateral Road Fund exists by virtue of article
    VIII, section l-a, of the Texas Constitution and article 7048a, V.T.C.S.
    Article VIII, section l-a, provides that counties may:
    . . . levy ad valorem taxes upon all property within
    their respective boundaries... provided the revenue
    derived therefrom shall be used for construction and
    maintenance of Farm-to-Market       Roads or for Flood
    Control,      except   as herein otherwise      provided.
    (Emphasis added).
    Article 7048a provides that:
    Sec. 2... [Cl aunties... are hereby authorized to...
    collect ad valorem taxes upon all property within
    their respective boundaries... provided the revenue
    therefrom shall be used... for the construction and
    maintenance of Farm-to-Market and Lateral Roads or
    for Flood Control and for these two (2) purposes only.
    sec.    Taxes... shall be credited... to separate
    3.
    funds known as the Farm-to-Market and Lateral Road
    Fund, to be used solely for Farm-to-Market         and
    Lateral Roads within such county.. . . (Emphases
    added1
    The question is whether these provisions may be construed so as to
    permit delinquent tax revenue earmarked for the Farm-to-Market            and
    Lateral Road Fund to be used to pay a delinquent tax attorney for his efforts
    p. 693
    Honorable Bill D. Jackson   - Page Two        (KW-217)
    in collecting that revenue. In our opinion, they may not be su construed. Article VIII,
    section l-a, and article ‘7048a clearly provide that revenue from ad valorem taxation
    shall be used solely for the construction and maintenance of Farm-to-Market Roads or
    for flood control, and we see no basis for reading into these provisions sn exemption
    which the legislature apparently did not intend.       The law is well-settled that an
    unambiguous statute will ordinarily be interpreted literally and that courts may not,
    under the auise of statutorv construction,      read excentions or exemntions into a
    statute, no matter how desirable they may seem. A. M: Servicirg Corp. Of Dallas v.
    e,      
    380 S.W.2d 747
    (Tex. Civ. App. - Dallas 1964, no writ). See also 53 Tex. Jur. 2d
    Statutes SS119,et seq.
    Commissioners’ Court v. Wallace, 
    15 S.W.2d 535
    (Tex. 1929), does not compel a
    different  conclusion.   In that case, the Texas Supreme Court upheld a contract
    between a county and an abstract company which called for the company to furnish a
    complete abstract on all county property on which ad valorem taxes had not been paid
    in exchange for a portion of the delinquent taxes paid as a result of the company’s
    efforts.   However, despite language in the opinion to the effect that “a part of
    uncollected taxes (may) be used in defraying the expense of the collection...,” the case
    clearly turned on article 7335, V.T.C.S., which specifically      authorized the com-
    missioners’ court to “pay for an abstract of property assessed or unknown and
    unrendered from the taxes, interest, and penalty to be collected on such lands,” such
    payment being contingent upon collection of such taxes, interest, and penalty. 
    15 S.W. 2d
    535, 536-37. Hence, while there was in Wallace specific statutory authority for the
    contract and for the method of payment, neither article 7335, V.T.C.S., nor other
    statutes authorize a delinquent tax attorney’s commission to be paid out of Farm-to-
    Market Lateral Tax Fund revenue.
    We also direct your attention to article VIII, section 9 of the Texas Constitution,
    which establishes a general fund, a road and bridge fund, a permanent improvement
    fund, and a jury fund. A 1967 amendment to section 9 provides that “any county may
    put all tax money collected by the county into one general fund, without regard to the
    purpose or source of each tax.” However, this amendment has been held to apply only
    to these four tax levies and not to section l-a funds. Attorney General Opinion H-530
    (1975).    Thus, revenue in the Farm-to-Market         Lateral Tax Fund could not be
    transferred to the general fund and then be used to pay a delinquent tax attorney’s
    commission for collecting delinquent Farm-to-Market and Lateral Road Fund revenue.
    SUMMARY
    A claim for delinquent tax attorney commissions may not be
    paid out of Farm-to-Market Lateral Tax Fund revenue.
    r     MARK        WHI’TE
    Attorney   General of Texas
    P.   694
    Honorable Bill D. Jackson    - Page Three     (NW-217)
    JOHN W. FAINTER, JR.
    First Assistant Attorney General
    Prepared by Jon Bible
    Assistant Attorney General
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMlTTEE
    C. Robert Heath, Chairman
    Jim Allison
    Jon Bible
    Walter Davis
    Susan Garrison
    Rick Gilpin
    P.   695
    

Document Info

Docket Number: MW-217

Judges: Mark White

Filed Date: 7/2/1980

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017