Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1966 )

Honorable Joe Resweber Opinion No. C-781
County Attorney
Harris County Courthouse Re: Back assessment of real e&ate
Houston, Texas 77002 for ad valorem taxes.
Dear Mr. Resweber:
You ask our opinion in answer to four questions. We
answer them in the order ln,which they are asked. All Articles
of the statutes herelnafter referred to ar.eArticles of Vernon's
Civil Statutes.
1.
Your first question is:
"Is it mandatory that the County Tax
Assessor-Collector back assess newly dis-
covered improvtiments,.~inthe case where
the land was on the tax rolls and was pre-
viously assessed and the taxes paid thereon?"
Our answer is "No, the property cannot be back assessed."
We assume that the taxes on the realty upon which the
improvements are located were properly assessed and that such
improvements constitute a part of the realty.
Real property for purposes for ad valorem taxation
includes all buildin s, structures, improvements, and fixtures
thereon. Artlc~l&71&6 and 7319.
Articles 7207, 7346, and 7347 require the tax assessor
to "back" assess any real property which has been omitted from
the tax rolls.
However, your question relates not to land which was
omitted from thk tax rolls but rather to the under valuation
of.l_andwhich Is on the tax rolls. Therefore, Articles 720’[,
7346, and 7347 have no application.
-3745
. -
- .
Honorable Joe Resweber, Page 2 (c-781)
The land and the Improvements thereon having been
duly assessed for taxes and such taxes paid, the state and
county may not now, under any guise, make any claim for
taxes against the land for the years in question. Article
7338, In its pertinent portion, prohibits any claims or
demands for additional taxes under ,thesecircumstances; it
reads:
,I
. . . lands that may have been duly
assessed and taxes paid on one assessment,
shall not be deemed subject to the
provisions of this chapter. . , .'
The chapterin which this Article 7338 is found relates to
delinquent taxes and their collection. Our position Is
supported by Rowen v. Hauptmann, 352 S.W.2d 158 (Tex.Clv.
App. 1961).
It was the duty of the assessor to Inform himself of
the value of the property and it was also the duty of the
Board of Equalization to do the ssme thing. The law con-
clusively presumes, in the absence of fraud or Illegality,
that the value determined by a Board of Equalization is
correct and Is final and the value assigned by that Board
cannot subsequently be questioned and is binding on the
taxi bodies. State v. Mallet Lands& Cattle Co., 126 Tex.
392,3 8 S.W.2d 471 (1935); State v. Houser, 136
156 S.W.2d 968 (1941); McMickle v. Rochelle, 12,‘.Yi 2$i
Tex.Civ.App. 1910 ; Ramey v. City of Tyl er, 45 S.W.id 359
tTex.Civ.App. 19321 , -The valuation placed upon real estate
and its Improvements by the Board of Equalization when such
value was materially less than the true value of the prop-
erty was held to be final in State v. Chicago, R. I. & G.
y,";;;.%f;.L;: @+~2~c;~.~pfpfi``~;``in which 241 S.W.
2.
Your second question Is:
'Is It mandatory that the tax office
charge penalty and interest on back assess-
ments of real property?"
Our answer Is 'Yesn.
-3746
c .
. .
. I
Honorable Joe Resweber, Page $ (c-781)
It Is mandatory that the tax office charge a penalty
as provided by Article 7347, and Interest as provided in
Article 7348, Attorney General's Opinion V-166 (1947).
3.
Your third question is:
"In the situation where real property
is actually located In Harris County, but
taxes thereon have been assessed and paid
In the adjoining county, can the Harris
County Tax Assessor back assess sa;d real
property, for County tax purposes?
Our answer is "Yes".
The following excerpt from Frost v. Fowlerton Consoli-
dated School Dist.'Wo. 1, 111 S.W.2d 754 (Tex.Civ.App. 193r
Is helpful in discerning the intent of the Legislature under
these circumstances. The court quoted from another jurisdiction,
as follows:
11
. The property of respondent was
. .
wholly outside of the taxing jurisdiction
or taxing district of Stanley county, and
was therefore not taxable at all in that
county, and the amounts so paid by respon-
dent to said Stanley county were in fact
not a tax at all. Stanley county was
wholly without jurisdiction or authority
to levy and collect such sums as a tax
against the property of respondent".
(at P. 757).
On the other hand, you should consider whether your fact
situation Is one to which Article 7156 would apply. This Article .
covers a situation where land was assessed in a county according
to the abstract of land titles and the tax paid thereon,
Since the land is actually located in Harris County and
has not been assessed In that County, It should be assessed for
county tax purposes by the Assessor of Harris County pursuant
to Articles 7207, 7346, and 7347. Attorney General's Opinion
-3747-
. -
1 . .
- -
Honorable Joe Resweber, Page 4 (c-781)
v-973 (1949). The adjoining county which assessed and col-
lected the county tax has the authority to refund to the tax-
payer, the amount of county tax erroneously collected.
4.
Your fourth question Is:
“In the situation where real property
is actually located In Harris County, but
taxes thereon have,been assessed and paid
in the adjoining county, can the Harris
County Tax Assessor back assess said real
property, for State tax purposes?”
Our answer is “No”.
Since the land has been assessed for State taxes and
those taxes paid, the land may not again be assessed for State
taxes. The authorities considered and cited In answer to your
first question (supra) support this proposition.
SUMMARY
1.
Real property upon which ad valorem
taxes have been duly assessed and paid may
not be back assessed even though the land
was under-valued for tax purposes.
2.
The penalty and interest prescribed
In Articles 7347 and 7348 against lands
which are back assessed pursuant to Art-
icle 7207 and 7346 is mandatory.
3.
Real property located in Harris County
which has not been assessed.
. _ _ for county
_ - taxes
by tnat county may ae oack assesses for such
taxes.
-374%
- .
T . ..*. -
Honorable Joe Resweber, Page 5 (c-781)
4.
Real property actually located In Harris
County, but heretofore thought to be in an
adjoining county and upon which State taxes
have been paid, may not be back assessed by
Harris County for State taxes.
Your8 very truly,
WAGGONER CARR
Attorney General of Texas
BYW.lo.8.~
E. Allen
Assistant
WEA:ck
APPROVED
OPINION COMMIm:
W. V. Geppert, Chairman
James Evans
Gordon Cass
John Banks
Roaer Tyler
API;ROti FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: T. B. Wright
-3749- ~.