Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1947 )

B-355
Hon. E. F. Campbell Opinion No, V-194
County Attorney
Fisher County Re: The authority of the Commis-
Robg, Texas sioners' Court, sitting as a
Board of Equalization, to con-
c slder an assessment on Its own
motion and without the Assessor’s
request or suggestion, in re-
gard to raising valuations.
Dear Mr n Campbell:
In your letter of April 9, 1947 you request the
opinion of this department upon the following question, con-
cretely stated in your letter as follows:
"When the Tax Assessor for the County,
assesses real estate in the regular way and the
land owner signs it and swears to it as provided
in Article 7211 Vernon Civil Statutes and the
assessor accepts lt as mad,e by the land owner,
does the Commissioners Court sftting as a board of
equalization have a right to take this up on their
own motion without any suggestion, notation, re-
quest or complaint of any kind from the Assessor
and after due notlce to the land holder raise or
lower the rendition as to value especially to raise
the value?"
As a preface to our opinion we point out briefly the
constitutional and statutory provisfons pertaining to the Tax
Assessor and the Commlssloners’ Court, (Board of Equalization) 0
Suffice it to say that the Office of Tax Assessor Fs a constitu-
tional office and Ls provided for by Article VIII, Section 18 of
the Constitution, end now combined with the office of Tax Collec-
tor by the Constitution as amended November 8, 1932. Therefore,
by the terms of Article 718la V,C,S. the terms are used lnter-
changeably, and refer to the one office of Assessor and Collec-
tor of taxes. Notwithstanding the consolfdation of the two
offices there still remains certain statutory duties and func-
tions, separate and apart and attached to each respective office,
as existed at the tfme of the consolidation,
Ther,efore, TOP the purpose of this opinion we shall
Hon. E. F. Campbell, page 2, v-194
first confine ours,elves to the duties imposed by statute upon the
Tax Assessor O
Article 7211 V.C.S * provides:
“Hereafter when any person, firm or corpora-
tion renders his, their or its property in thfs
L?.ta$e for taxation to any tax assessor, and makes
oath as to the’kind, character, quality and
quanttty of such property, and the sald officer
accepting said rendition from such person, firm
or corporation of such property is satisfied that
ft is correctly and properly valued according to
the reasonable cash market value of such property
on the market at the time of Its rendition, he
shall list the same accordingly; but, if the asses-
sor 1s satisfied that the value Is below the rea-
sonable cash market value of such property, he
shall at once place on said rendltfon opposite
each piece of property so rendered an amount eq-
ual to the reasonable cash market value of such
property at the time of Its rendition, and if such
property shall be found to have no market value by
such officer, then at such sum as said officer
shall deem the real or intrinsic value of the prop-
erty; and ff .the person listing such property or
the owner thereof is not satisfied with the value
placed on the property by the assessor, h,e shall
so notify the assessor, and if desiring so to do
to make oath before the assessor that the valuation
so fixed by said officer on said property Is ex-
cessive; sueh officer to furnish such rendition,
together with his valuation thereon and the oath
of such person, firm or officer OP any corporation,
if any such oath has been made, to the commissioners’
court. of the County in which said rendition was
made, which court shall hear evldenoe and determine
the ~true value of such property on January 1 19
(here give yeas for whioh assessment is madej as-
Is herein provided; such officer or oourts shall
take Into consideration what 5eid property could
have been sold for any time withln six months next
beiore the lat day of January of the geap ?OP which
the property fs rendered.”
In addition to Article 7211 ‘quoted above the following
provisions direct the Assessor to’.transmit ‘to the Commissioners’
Court (Board of Equalization) assessments of rendered and unren-
dered pPopert$:
“‘Article 7218
Hon. E. F. Campbell, page 3, v-194
"The assessor of taxes shall submit all the
lists of property rendered to him prior to the first
Monday in June to the board of equallzatlon of his
County on the first Monday In June or aa soon there-
after as practicable, for their Inspection, approval,
correction or equallzatlon a O D 6 -"
"Article 7206
It0 0 0 (IThe assessors of taxes shall furnish
said board on the first Monday in Hay of each year,
or as soon thereafter as practicable, a certified
list of names of all persona who either refuse to
swear or to qualify or to have algn%d the oath re-
quired by law, tog&her withtie asaeasment of aaid
person's property made by him through other infor-
mation; and said board shall examine, equalize and
correct assessments so made by the assessor, and
when so revised, ecjuallzed and corrected, the same
shall be approvsd.
"Article 7217
"The assessor of taxes shall furnish the board
of equalization on the first Monday in June of each
year, or as .soon theresfter aa practicable, a’cer-
tiffed list of names of all persona who either re-
fused to swear or qualify or to sign the oath as
prescribed in this title; also a list of the names
of those persons who refused to rendera list of
taxable proper%y as required by this title a a .,'I
The foregoing statutory provlslons cover generally
the duties imposed upon the Tax Assessor in racelvlng the rendi-
tion of property owners at the value set by them In making vol-
untary renditions of their property for the purpose of taxation
and changes made in said renditions by the Tax Assessor as to
value and the transmission of such renditfons, whether changed
by him OP not, to the Commissioners ) Court (Board of Equalization)
for the purpose of equalizing and correetfng the values shown by
the rolls. .
When he has transmitted the renditions to the Commis-
sioners' Court for fts official action, he has completed ,a11
that is required of him until the~Commissfon%rs' Court ha8
acted upon the same as the Board of Bqualfzation.
We pass next to the constitutional and statutory duties
of the CommfssfonersV Court as a Board of Equallzatlon~ The Com-
missioners' Court is a constitutional COUPE provided for by
Bon, B. F. Campbell, page 4, v-194
Article V, Section 1, of the Constltutlon which 1s aa follows:
"The judicial power of this state shall be
vested In one Supreme Court, in Courts of Civil
Appeals, In a Court of Criminal Appeals, In D&strict
Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioneps Court&,
in Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in such
. other courta as may be provided by law," (Emphasis
supplied)
The jurisdiction of the Commissioners' Court 1s'dePined
in the'latter part of Section 18 of Article V of the Constitution
as follows:
"The county commissioners so chosen, with the
county judge, as presiding officer, shall compose
the County Commissioners Ccurt, which shall exercise
such powers and jurisdiction over all $ountg businesp,
aa is conferred by,thls Constitution and the laws of
the State OF as ma be hereafter prescribed."
(Emphasis supplied 7
There is, however, an express llmitatlon upon the juris-
diction thus conferred upon the Commissioners' Court, that is,
it mast be "county business",
Tke Constitution has further expressly conferred upon
the Legislature the power to provide, as nearly as may be, the
valuation of all property subject to or rendered for taxation,
This is provided for by A~ticls VIII, Section 18 of the Constf-
tution as follows~
"The Legislature shall provide for equalizing,
as near as may be, the valuation of all property
subject to or rendered for taxation, (the County
Commissioner's Court to constitute a board of
equalization); and may also provide for the clasa-
ification of all lands with reference to their
value in the several counties."
This brings us to yc~r concrete problem of whether or
no% the Commiss loners I Cour% (Board of Equalization) may act upon
Its own motion in equalizing value without Its jurlsdlctlon in
this regard being first invoked by the Tax Assessor. The answer
to this questlon 1s in %he affirm&tive~ We dlscuaa briefly our
reasona for this conclusion. As above noted, Sectlm 18 of
Article VIII of the Constltulon requires %he Legislature to
"provide for equalizing as near as may be, the valuation of all
property subject to or rendered for taxation," Pursuant to this
constitutional mandate the Legislature has by the Wactwnt of
.
Hon. E. F. Campbell, page 5, v-194
Articles 7206 and 7212 V.C.S. provided for equalizing the valua-
tion of all property subject to or rendered for taxation.
The terms of Article 7206 are:
“Each commlssloners court shall convene and
sit as a board of equalization on the second Monday
in May of each year, or as soon thereafter as prac-
ticable before the first day of June, to receive all
the assessment lists or books of the assessors of
their counties for Inspection, correction or equal-
ization and approval I ”
Article 7212 v.c,s, provides:
“The boards of equalization shall have power,
and it is made their official duty, to supervise the
assessment of their respective counties, and, if
satisfied that the valuation of any property 1s not
in accordance with the laws of the State, to ln-
crease or diminish the same and to affix a proper
valuation thereto, as provided for in the preceding
article; ‘O o m . O”
When the Legislature said In Article 7206, V.C.S.;
!‘shall examine, equalize and correct assesments so made by the
assessor, and when so revised, equalized and corrected, the same
shall be approved” and sald l.n Article 7212, V.C.S. the “Board
of equalization shall have power, and It Is made their offlclal
duty, to supervise, the assessment of their respective counties,
and, if satisfied that the valuation of any property Is not In
accordance with the laws of the State, to increase or diminish
,the same and to affix a proper valuation thereto,” It dealt with
such matters unquestionably as “county business” appropriately
entrusted to the Commlsslonsrs I Court acting as a Board of Equal-
lzatlon, In the exercise of this quasi judicial function the
Commlsslonersl Court (Board of ISquallzatlon) may do so upon its
own initiative without a suggestion from the Tax Assessor.
This view has been confirmed In the ,Case of Brundett
et al vs. Lucas 194 9,W. ~614 (Ct. of Civ. App. San Antonio) e !lbe
following is stated:
“We conclude that the act of 1879 which be-
came article 5120, R-9. 1895, and article 4715 Rd.
1879 were both designed to give the board of equal-
ization the power to equalize assessments In al,1
cases, regardless of whether the assessor or any one
else made complaint, and this appears to have been
the construction placed thereon by the Suprem Court
.
Hon. E. F. Campbell, page 6, v-194
when it cited both provisions in support of its
statement with reference to the change made. In
1907 said article 4715, then No. 5124, was amended
so that the first portlon thereof reads as fol-
lows :
“‘The boards of equalization ,shall have
power) and it is made their official duty, to
supervlse the assessment of their respective
counties, and, if satisflea that the valuation of
any property is not in accordance with the laws
of the state, to increase or diminish the same
and to affix a proper valuation thereto, as pro-
vided for in article 7569 of this chapter . 0 0f
“And thus’ amended, it now appears as article
7570 R.S. 1911. As l,t now reads, It it111 con-
fers ample power to equalize without complaint,
even though the words ‘without complaint from any
one’ were omitted; but If such omission could be
given the effect contended for by appellee, nev-
ertheless article 7564 gives the board full power
to equalize and makes it the duty of the board to
do so, regardless of whether any;complalnt has
been made by t,he assessor or any one else. This
article received renewed legislative spproval in
1909, therefore cannot be said to be affected by
the repeal clause &the act of 1907 had there
been a conflict between the two acts, We conclude
that the judgment cannot be sustained on the theory
that, as the assessor made no complaint, the action
of the boeti was not authorized.”
We point out that whet was formtirly Article 5124 dls-
cussed in this case is now Article 7212 and as will be observed
Is in identical language, but as it read before amended It
specifically said “without complaint from any one” - Bowever s as
was saLd in Brundett et al vs, Iucas supra, t,he power still re-
mains to act “without’ complaint from any one under Article
7206 - 7212, The phrase without complaint from any one” was
iii the amendment simply eliminated as surplusage. Article 7212
“shall have power etc.” Shall have power to do what?
i%cle 7212 gives the answer as follows:
11 to auperyfse the essesment of
thelr,iespectfve counties, and, If satisfied that
the veluatlon of any property 1s not in accord-
ance with the laws of the State, to increase OP
zp;im;zh the same and lo affix a proper valuatfon
9 a 0 0 0 0 0 D
.
Hon. IL F. Campbell, Page 7, v-194
A more recent case to the same effect is Wright vs.
State (Ct. of Civ. App. Amarillo) 80 S.W. (26) 1015 from which
we quote as follows:
"The action of the equalization board In
fixing values IS judicial In Its nature, and they
may flx such values based upon matters wlthln
their own knowledge a e e The general rule is
that equalization boards may act upon their own
judgment of what la equal and just, and, In the
absence of fraud, their determination cannot be
challenged if It appears that they have previously
Inspected the properties with the view of deter-
mlnlng values 0 s D 0 *"
It does not follow, however, that the Commissioners
Crrurt (Board of Equalization) may increase the values in the ex-
ercise of its Judicial functions wlthout giving the taxpayer
notice and an opportunity to be heard, for such notice Is a
necessary prerequisite to its jurisdiction, and without It there
would be a lack of "due pro 89s". Highland Park Independent
School District of Dallas Cfil nty, et al vs. Republican Insurance
Company, 80 S.W. (2d) 1053. Hoefllng vs. San Antonio 39 S.W.
918 (Supreme Court.) In this latter case the court said:
The board has no power to increase
that v&e'(referring to the value fixed by the
property owner in his rendltlon) without glvin
notice to the owner 0 0 0 *" (Parenthesis ours k
It follows from the foregoing that we are of the oplnion
that the Commissioners I Court (Board of Equallzatlon) has the
power and authority to raise or lower valuation of property for
taxation without the same being lnltlated by the Tax Assessor,
but if the valuation is to be raised notice mst be given to the
taxpayer of the Board's intention to raise such valuatFon and
give him an opportunity to be heard.
SUMMARY
The Commissioners' Court (Board of Equali-
zation) has the power to raise property valua-
tion for taxation without its jurisdiction belng
first invoked by the Tax Assessor. It may act
upon its own inltlative. If the valuation 1s
increased, however, notice mst be given to the
taxpayer. Article 7206, V.C.S., Article 7212,
V.C.S.; Brundett et al vise Lucas, 194 S.W. 613,
State vs. Wright, 80 S.W. (26) 1015.
Hon. E, F. Campbell, page 8, v-194
Yours very truly,
ATTORNEYGENERAL
OF TEXAS
By: s/L. P. Lollar
L. P. Lollar
Assistant
APPRUVED MAY10, 1947
s/Price Daniel
ATTORNEY G-