Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN ‘Fhaque 1 out or 8 mn- ot~otlbm OS t * At368 1931. iv0 rsat:sit 6 ti .' ggmrable W. A. N0rr1st?n,Page 2 “(2) B ares dollnquent ;Iltate,Count , Who01 Distriot aztdRoad Distrlot taxes fru# 192B to 1940, a.nuluslYs.No sulithas bean filed. B tendsrs to the ' Tax Oolleotor all taxes sxospt thornswhich he alati are barrad by the statute of liaftationsaontrlnod in tha above Artials, "Qusstionr Would the‘~?u Oollootor bs proteotsd fron liability en MS bond If hs aaospted the taxes as so tendsrsa? In Our Opinion fo. O-1262 this department has hold that all taxes appearing upon ths gsneral tax rolls egalast any sep- amtoly lsss~smsdtraot or:traats of land, must, under ths statutes, re@,atlons and d6clslons adverted to therein, bs pal6 at the mama tima in , th a sntlr 0Iiy a ndno tp a r %ia llT, lxaept *s otherwlsopro- tided by statute in ths ease of oertrin sahool distriat twces (Artlole7336e, Vernon*8 Taxaa bl*ll .8tatutas).Although thb faa- tlm1 sltuatloabefore us in ths vrlting of tha opinion mr0m0.d to appears to smbreoe ourrent tax*8 rather than delinquent taxes, ths prbolplos and ruthoritlesupon vhloh aId opinion 1s groundad, vould~likewlssobtain In ths Instant ease vhers dslln&nt taxos are involved. We enclose a copy of this oplulon for Tour oonsid- lnb l0n. It lr aooo~ly our oonoluslon that sssessor-aollmotor of taxes for lIllam Cm&y vcmldnot be authorlsed to collsst and rewlvo any part&al payment of the delinquent state, oountj, school dirtrlat and road distriot taxes involved hem+, unless reqwlzed to ds so w tha maMatow krms of soms applluablo statute or ths Nrmrl JwQgmant of a aourt of aerspetentjurisdlotlon. In passing, howover,~letit be said thrt this aoncolusion should not be owftasod vlth the ``~0tdti0nea rulo~or law that taxes, ourrent or dolfaquont, my ba .paldupon any em separately oss~ssed traot or pave1 OS l.aM vithout payment of'taxes assmised against other twcrts or par- 601s of realty ovnad by the taxpayer. This rulr Is annouuoed w atr supreme court ln ths aase or Rluhay, et al vs. xoor, 249 a. v. 172, and fully reaognlsod In suoeosslre opinions of this depart- wait, lmludlng our Opinions Ilos.0.1262 and O-928. It does not appear frc~ tha trots statsd by jou whether ons or more trrots or pareels of land ara Involved, OF, if more than one traot of lupd, vhether suuh treets are separately assessed so as to fall within th6 above mile. We nurs1.yhold that, subject to s&d rule, the aonorableY. A. Norrison, Psge 3 & ass.ssor-ooll.otorof hour oouatr m8y not lsw?ull~, absent s0ae o*%ling et&at* or j*ent, 8ooept 8nd noelre less than the totel smount of ourreat 01 delluqueat taxes oharged ogslnst u&y one srplrmtoly ~ssessod tract of ha, or, If more than one traot of iad, 8gqlnst such traats as are rendwed and 888b8886 In 80iid0. !lWequestlou remins if the following provision of Artl- ale 7298, Veraonts Texas Civil Hatutes, eonrtltutes,umler the spInion referred to and the oondltlonsof the assessor-oollaotor's o??lolalbond, an oxoqdlon, w lav, t8 that o?flolal's ostablish- d duty of oollaotlngaud ame tlng nothlng less than the entire a8eullt of taxes, uurrentorde f lnqueat,due mdovlngunder woae *rsssNalt. We quote from sald statute: "That no delinquent taxpayer shall ham the right to pleaa in any Court or in sny msnuer rely upon any Stat&e of Llmltatlon by vay of defense .~@.nst the gmyrmatof tax08 due f+rolnhim or her to the State, Or sny oouuty, oitr, town, ~avigatlon Dlstrlot, Dminrge Dietriot, Road Dlstrlat, Leree Dirtriot, R~olam.stlon Dlstrlot, XrrlgatlonDlstrLot, ImprovaseatDistrlot, @ho01 Dlstrlat end all other Dlstrlots~ r0vtded, that no suit shall bs broqht for the eolPeotlon of delinquent taxes of a Sahool Dirtriot or RoadDistrict unless Lnstituted althln ten yecrrs fraa the time the same shsll beoom della- quent." We think the proviso of the above-quoted statute is, striotljrand properly 003i8tm,a, a limitation statute, and the ml.8 and doolsione governitrgand applloable to general statutes of liaitotionvmld apply hwe. Ruder suoh, It must be said that these dallnquent s&o01 luu~ro8d di8trI0t taxes are not mtt46, nleased or discharged w the statute cited and quoted above tit ssm only goes to the ramody and fumlshes the taxp8yer a defense to a~ action bron&t for such taxes after the li.mlktlonperiod. ti sohool and read distriot taxes in the instant case are still due ma owing to the mrpsotlre tulag atlthorities involved, do- *pit+ the assertion of the t8xpajer that he will invoke th8 appll- *able stat&e of limitationas to a portlti of them. It is 0nly U&s remedy for their oollectlonuhiah may be ~ffeoted by this llrltatlonstatute. IiLmltatlonis a defense vhloh must be speolal- 19 urged, Is personal to the debtor, tmd may be waived by hfpr. gommble W. A. Jlorrlsgn,~40 4 p@ $eus &mlsprudsnoe, 245, It is our e@nlon that it is not fop +e tax assa~sor-oolleotor 0s ONWOR county but for the Omtq to detenlm the applloablllt~ o? this partinsnt statuts to th8 f8OtS bSfOP6 US. until the time th8t the i88ta~8 0s ltoltstlonolrsproper4 urgqd and adjudged by ths oourt the tax- ppr ssy vrlve this aefume. In 'ths intorim, the80 s&ool and ~BOM¶dlstrlob taxes lrs still dUS,8ad owing and tlu 888S880r- sellmotorOf t8xe8 is raqulrsd, under the ruling m~tlonea above, $s urnslrorg avallabls moans to oolleot suoh tams. We aooordlnglyanswer both of your qusstlons in ths ~gdaw3. YOum vary wul~ ATTO- - OP mx# w Assistsnt