Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1946 )

OFFlCEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS ’ AUSTIN 11 OROVER SELLERS *TroRNEY OENERAL Honomble B. S. p:oreman County Auditor Jefferson County Sea-ant, Texas Opinion No. O-7391 Ber Deduction of c We have yeur letter of oplnicm of this offloe en the abo letter read6 l&lpart as tollovs¶ or*6 otfloe the State A t AMhur Sea- vall Distrl My question Is, 1s it cost, vhen apparently the entire cost of collsct- ing delinquent taxes should be borne out of penal- ties and interest collected.” By Acts ef th,oRog\ll.wBIrrlen of tho hlst hglsl~- turn, 1929, Page 656, Chaptar 292, 8/9ths of th5 Btato ad valop*P tarcrson all prepertr, both real and pwm~l, eol- iee0a In C55m155lonor5 ' Prealnct le. 2 of Jeffenon County, Texas, vom dowted and panted te the City of Port Art&w ror th6 purpwe of ceastruatingandaaiIltalnln~a sea vall. This act ves eaendod by Aets of tho Regulas Se8sisn of the 47th Legialatum, Pw 1308, Chapter 584 and br the 49th Legirlatum, Page 615, Chapter 353, and as amended, pmriAo5 ln part as %aation 1. Thatoonoz’o~rlththe fireal ea* k@all~ Sopteabor 1, 1929, and en4lzigA\teust 41, 1961, tboro b5 rad honbl l domtod as4 gmat- ad by the Stat& of %?omu to tbo Ctty of Pert Arthur, TOXM ,lltua ted b J~efr o r s Gc entua ei~ TUM ,, o ig h t- tith s ( S/ 9of ) tk to net rrlomm t8x*5 oollocG?i urd jt0~8rarfin ~ID~s``uw~* b05bet’h 2, 0r Jofrorson Cm&r, Texas, a# it uirtd on Jaaualy 1, lg&, rhish s&l1 bo rsc5rhinod 8nd apportiowd as new 9rolrided br lw; pr?ofded that fx’m uad rStsr Aug4t.tSl, 1949, 'IbFermouuPd DollaS (43,oos) of the uaorrod WebI. valtiwof all nri~Wn5e kamotoatls, as nw Qofiaed by law, la 5ri4 Pm- ainct Ho. 2 shall bo 8xaapt frcrrrll tarattm for the pu3poser enwrated In this Act as rell a8 ferp rll 5kte purposes. %hC. 2. At the ld of uoh aemth, the Colleater of Taxes for Jeffomfm county, &all oa fOrrP5 to bo furnirhed br the Camptirellw oi I'ubltcAmounts me. an lteaiwd -part, Pador 5ath to raid C*9OWlL*, ahwlrrg eaoh and every itom of State ad valora tams eollectcsdby him as pmtidod for in tbla Act, open all pmpe)rt~, both ma1 and pmrsoml, &ISraid Ceaairsianors’ Pmc%n& Ao. 2 of Joffwnen County, Texas, as It exlBtud em Jsnum~ 1, 1.945,and (~ewm- panyfng seae with a sumwl5od stetawont shevizg full dlspositlon of all such State tmos aoUm?Aed1 maid Colliwto~ shall pnsent such nport tqethor with the tax nerlpt stubs, authotimd by law to be kept, to the h?ant)r Clorlcof Jefferscm huaty, ‘ibar, vho shall vlthln ten (10) daga 5olppll'ssaid report vlth 8 tubs, a.&, if the same sgme in every particular a8 r-al:ards names, dates and amount, the Clerk shall certify to Its c~rrecbnees for which examination and cartif'loatehe shsll be paid by the Commission- ers' Court, Tventy-five (2'5)Cents for each cortlfi- cate and Twenty-five (25) Centa for each tvo hundmd (200) taxpayers nemed in said report. Ilhe said Col- lector shall then lsssediatelpforward his report, 50 certified to the Comptroller and shall pay over by the treasurer of the City of Port Arthur, Texas, for such moneys to the Comptroller. The sald Col- lector sball rePit to the State Tmasury one-ninth (l/g) of all such taxes collected by him frae month to month.” (Undwscorlng Qurs) On January 17, 1945, the Cos~sl55loner5'Court of Jof- ferson County ontored into a oontract vlth E. 5. Prltcbwd for the collection of dsllnquant taxes In JeireersonCounty. Under the facts as stated Ln your letter, and in the excellent brief prepared by ylr.B. T. kilarter, City Attorney for the City of Port Arthur, Texao, It would so- that the 9it.a of Port Arthur is being charged with a proportionate prrt of the ca1ml55lon psld to Hr. Pritchard for tbo collection of delinquent taxes and that this amount is being deduated from the amount of taxes donated and granted to the City of Port ArtFur. your question, therefore, is vhere, as here, the penalty and interest are collected, should tbe.ontire 0t?5s5155%onpayable to Mr. Pritchard, be paid out of the penalty and fnterest and no part of It deducted from the aaount donated and granted to the City of Port Arthur. Artlole 733’56, V. A. R. C. 3. provides in part: %ec. 1. No contract ahell be made or entered * Ceurt in connection vlth Into by the Ce1m5l5sloner5 the aolleotien of delinquent taxes vhere the coPpen- sation under such contract,15 more than fifteen per cent of the amount cof.lectsd.” Hanorable 2. S. PO-, page 4 Article 7264a, V. A. R. C. S,, Sec. 2, pxwiaea in part: %bet of aolleat%ng deli.nqmnt taxes shall not exceed the amount of’the penalty end interest, or m amount equbl to ottahpenalty and inkore~t of all delinquent tnms aolleoted.” As Ve oaoBtm0 the80 statutes, they eperate -1~ as a lfriktlon Ed the amountvhiuh mat k paid to the oollecting attorney under & contract to aollect delfnqueat taxes. ID Momiron v. law, 157 8. U. (26) 466 (G. C. A., &wPont) a 01180vhere the Legislature hsd remitted the mlty MQ interest, the oonrt rlloved the aarl~slen to be paid out of the tax. Ia tbrt aaBe, 8peaking tbrougb Obief Jueitiae Walker, Ehe Court saMa “Artlale 733% is aothlng mere than s llmfk- tlen upon Q&e POWOF of the court in flxm the ea- penutlon ef the 8htoaey uplefed un&er the oentnat authorized by Article 7335. Soctioa 2 of Article 726h Is nothing OOFOthan a pov%mlan to the efteat that the C)o8toi’col&eatirq dellw@ent taxse rhll aet exceod t&e ueunt of penalty ead Interest, or an ueunt equal to muuh penalty and iaterert OS all dellnqumt taxem oolleoted, that &B, at.. 7264a em- povered the Ceu188ienena Court to m&e a, contmet otlthe cODditt0nB tbenein 8tipl&tod, utd no a-tea- tion 18 made that when executed tbe centnrat was ia violation of hv. There ie nothing 3.nbhere artiolee to the offeat tbet the attorney employed to oolleat dollnquent tam8 8hsll bo pal4 ui!ilt Fran the Snten8t *ad penalty due en Qeltiquent tbaxe8i 4isb this beep kho intonk cf khe Legl.rt*ture,it w@U%d not bare been provided by Article 7335 that the attorney 6oul.d be paid ‘a per oent en the tue8.‘* s*hwe htiole 7335a aad Beation 2 of Article 72644~ ope,nte only as a Umiktien on the ameunt vhiah may be prfd to the aolleating atteraey, It i8 the opinion sf this 0SftQe that the City of PO& Arthur.is pcoperl? ohargssble with lta prepor- tS.onate part of the aorta of aollectinpldelinquent taxen,. As Honorable X. 5. FONSIM, mge 5 veo enstr ue th elut,donating and granting to the City of’Pert Arkhaw a / g of ’8the State ad valaxes~taxes ~olleeted in cam- ~ir~ionem~ Pncinct go. 2, this deduction is ~pecifieally provided for. The underraorod portion or the above-quoted aat provides that 8/9’s of, the not slouut of the taxes (that ia, the groar amuut oelleotid ~B~uthorised exxpetadl- tuma) be dauated and granted to the City of Port Arthur. Fprthec, in the act this expeadituwe wks mtlcipeted aad au- thorlsed by the following lm%guagB: ““*Bight-ninth8 (8/9) or all moneys colleated by him dwing maid month under the previsions of this Aat, exempt 8Wh uountr a8 8ra allawed by l&V fBX'88848BiDg aad COllOQttng the We.* In vlov of the lauglaageei the sktutn, it iB U&b- pukd that the various UOWltB of tuea, we pmmerly OOVON dOl& q UODt, & B Wll lB WFFMt -08. -0 Q~B B iC#D dUS NF. PrltahediB eukueunt allovrd& v fop the oolloctien of delinquatt taxes and thue a part or this GOB- RIBB~OZI 18 properly deduatible from the ummt do?mted te the ClZJ or Pert Al-thuo. Robert T. Denahue A6BiBtrnt RTD/JCP