Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1959 )


Menu:
  •                    THE    AITORNEY                GENERAL
    OF      TEXAS
    AUSTIN    ``.‘X%ZUAS
    WVII.L   WILSON
    ATTORNEY      CENERAL
    November 12, 1959
    Honorable Robert S. Calvert            Opinion No. ww-721
    Comptroller of Public Accounts
    Capitol Station                        Re:      Whether items purchased
    Austin, Texas                                   by the Board of Control
    for use by State Agencies
    are subject to the tax
    levied by Chapter 20,
    H.B. 11, 56th Leg., 3rd
    Dear Mr. Calvert:                               C.S. and related questions.
    You have requested an opinion on the following questions
    pertaining to the taxes imposed by Chs. 20 and 23 of H.B. 11,
    3rd C.S. of the 56th Legislature:
    "1 . Are items purchased by the Board of
    Control for use by State Agencies or for use
    by the State in any form subject to the tax
    levied by this Article B.B. 11, Ch. 2q?
    "2. Some State Agencies are not required
    to make the purchases through the Board of
    Control. Are items purchased by these Boards
    or Agencies for the use of this Agency or
    for the use of the State or Its employees
    subJect to the tax levied under this Article?
    "3. Is a state  employee traveling at state
    expense required to pay the hotel occupancy
    tax levied under Chapter 23 of this Article?
    "In the event you hold that items sold under
    questions 1 and 2 of this request are taxable,
    then is the seller of such item6 required to
    obtain a permit?"
    Ch. 20 of H.B. 11 levies certain excise taxes upon users of
    the products specified therein. Article 20.07, Sec. (a) provides:
    "Every retailer who makes a sale or distri-
    bution of an Item taxable under this Chapter
    In Texas to the user shall rdd thn amount cf
    said tax-to the selling pri'e of such item which
    said tax shall be collected +'romthe nurchaeer
    or recipient or' such item at the time of such
    saie or dlstr,lbdtiol.,and said tax shit11be
    Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 2     Opinion No. ww-721
    reported and paid to the State of Texas as
    hereinafter provided."
    'User" is defined in Article 20.01(p):
    "'User' shall mean and include every
    person who purchases, uses or acquires In
    any other manner any item taxable under
    this Chapter for his own use in Texas and
    who does not purchase or acquire same for
    the purpose of resale."
    "Person" is defined by Article 20.01(a):
    "'Person' shall mean and include any
    individual, firm, co-partnership, joint
    venture, association, social club, fraternal
    organization, corporation, estate, trust,
    business trust, receiver, assignee for the
    benefit of creditors, trustee, trustee in
    bankruptcy, syndicate, the United States,
    any agency, institution or instrumentality
    of the United States, this State, any agency,
    institution, political subdivision or ln-
    strumentality of this State, or any other
    group or combination acting as a unit."
    The conclusion that the tax Imposed by Ch. 20 applies to
    items purchased by the State of Texas is inescapable; there~
    is no exemption from such tax either in the statutes or the
    Constitution of the State of Texas.l
    1
    In this connection, attention Is directed to the case of
    State v. City of El Paso, 
    143 S.W.2d 366
    (Tex.Sup.Ct. 1940)
    I   hi h it     h Id that the City of El Paso was not exempt
    f:oi p&mentwty eicise taxes upon gasoline used by the city
    purchased in the state of New Mexico. The holding was based
    upon the fact that since the Texas Constitution exempted munlcl-
    pal corporations only from ad valorem, Income, and occupation
    taxes, the city was not exempt from the payment of an excise
    tax. The contention of the city that it was not a corporation
    or agency within the meaning of the word "person" contained In
    the motor fuel excise tax law was over-ruled by the Court in
    the following language:
    "We think the statutory definition of 'person'
    as contained in subdivision (e) of Article 7065a-1
    covers all corporations or agencies which actually
    Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 3      Opinion No. ww-721
    However, even though the State is subject to the taxes
    imposed by Ch. 20, it cannot pay them.~ Article VIII, Section
    6 of the Texas Constitution states:
    "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury
    but in pursuance of specific appropriations
    made by law; nor shall any appropriation of
    money be made for a longer term than two years,
    except by the first Legislature to assemble
    under this Constitution, which may make the
    necessary appropriations to carry on the govern-
    ment until the assemblage of the sixteenth
    Legislature."
    In reference to this Section, Attorney General's Opinion
    No. O-6794 (1945) held that in the absence of a specific
    appropriation providing for payment of taxes due counties and
    school districts on prison land, the Texas prison system could
    not pay such taxes from prison Income. Under the authority of
    this opinion, it is obvious that agencies of the State of Texas
    may not pay the taxes imposed by Ch. 20 unless a specific appro-
    priation for such purpose is made by the Legislature. (In this
    connection, it does not matter whether state agencies make
    purchases independently or through the Board of Control.) No
    such appropriation has been made.
    Article 20.11 of H.B. 11 states:
    "(a) From and after the effective date of
    this Chapter, a11 retailers of items taxable
    under Articles 20.02, 20.03 and 20.04 of this
    Chapter in this State, now engaged or who desire
    to become engaged in the sale, use or distri-
    bution of items taxable under Articles 20.02,
    20.03 and 20.04 of this Chapter, fihall obtain
    a permitJ. . .No retailer shall make a sale, use
    1 (Cont'd.)
    sell motor fuel In Texas. This being true the
    statute also
    which use motor fuel
    sale in this State." (Raphasis added.)
    It Is apparent that any attempt to extend the constitutional
    exemption of municipal corporations from occupation, income
    and ad valorem taxes so as to relieve the State from payment of
    the taxes in question would be mollified by the reasoning and
    language of the foregoing case. (The Texas Constitution contains
    no other exemption provision applicable to the facts in issue.)
    Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 4     Opinion No. WW-721
    or distribution of an item taxable under Articles
    20.02, 20.03 and---f-
    20.0 of this Chapter until
    such application has been filed and a permit
    has been obtained."
    Though the State has no authority to pay the taxes imposed
    upon the items specified in Chapter 20, such items, when sold
    to the State, are technically "taxable" within the meaning of
    Article 20.11. Therefore, persons making sales of such Items'
    to the State are required to obtain a permit.
    Your last question is directed to whether or not state
    employees traveling at state expense are required tomy the
    hotel occupancy tax levied under Chapter 23 of H.B. 11, 3rd
    C.S. of the 56th Legislature.
    State employees renting hotel rooms in the course of
    travel at State expense may be compensated in two ways:
    1.   By a per diem reimbursement in lieu of actual expenses.
    2.   Reimbursement of actual expenses incurred.
    In neither situation does the State of Texas contract directly
    with the hotel. Regardless of how the state employee is
    reimbursed when he rents a hotel room, he is acting in his
    private capacity and incurs the tax in such capacity. Payment
    of the tax and the price of occupancy is made out of the
    employee's private funds; the employee does not act as the agent
    of the State in renting the hotel room, and payment for occu-
    pancy of the room is not made out of state funds. The employee
    is (within practical limits) at liberty to stay in the hotel
    of his choice, or not to stay Fn a hotel at all. The employee's
    expenses are reimbursed according to his contract2 with the
    State. Under these facts, the tax is not imposed upon the
    2
    Expense reimbursement is part of the employment contract with
    the State. To illustrate, an employee compensated on a per
    diem basis receives the same amount for each day's travel re-
    gardless of the price of any hotel room that might have been
    rented (and regardless of whether a hotel room was actually
    rented) in the course of such travel. Obviously In this situa-
    tion there is no direct connection between the State and the
    hotel. Likewise, In cases where the employee is paid for actual
    expenses, reimbursement is made pursuant to the employement con-
    tract. The State merely contracts with the employee to reimburse
    him for actual expenses incurred. The price of occupancy of a
    hotel room is merely one of such expenses, as is the hotel occu-
    pancy tax. The State does not contract directly withtie hotel,
    and does not act through the employee as agent when the employee
    rents a hotel room.
    .   I
    Hon. Robert S. Calvert, Page 5      Opinion No. WW-721
    State, consequently, there is no question as to whether the
    State is liable for payment thereof. The tax is a llablllty
    of and must be paid by the employee.
    SUMMARY
    Though agencies of the State of Texas are
    subject to the taxes imposed by Chapter 20 of
    H. B. 11, 3rd C.S., 56th Leg., there is no appro-
    priation specifically for the purpose of paying
    the taxes; therefore, the State may not pay them.
    But even though the State is prevented from pay-
    ing the taxes, the items specified in Chapter 20
    are technically "taxable"; consequently persons
    selling such items to the State are required to
    obtain the permit required by Article 20.11 of
    said Chapter.
    A State employee traveling at state expense
    is required to pay the hotel occupancy tax; the
    employee acts in his private capacity in con-
    tracting for the hotel room and incurs the tax
    in such capacity. The State does not contract
    with the hotel for payment of the price of occu-
    pancy, but only reimburses the employee, either
    on a per diem basis, or by paying him for actual
    expenses Incurred (in which latter case the tax
    paid by the employee is one of such actual expenses).
    Under these circumstances, there is no question of
    whether the State is liable for payment of the tax.
    Yours very truly,
    WILL WILSON
    Attorney General of Texas
    BY
    JNP:CM
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE:
    John Reeves, Chairman
    Milton Richardson
    Henrx Braswell
    L,inwardShivers
    REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    By:   W. V. GEPPERT
    

Document Info

Docket Number: WW-721

Judges: Will Wilson

Filed Date: 7/2/1959

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 2/18/2017