Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable B. B. Carter
County Attorney
Mltoh%11 county
Colorado, Tsxas
Dear Sirs
0 39sa,.
v . C..S., a6'
plioable.to agenolss
slltl%r .ot_th% Ted-
nt,astto~filing and'
8~authorlxed to b%
the provLsion8 oi,
l l?. c. s., 1925.
etter, dfitedApril 1, 1.999,
rtment, wheteia ycm mm
01% 3932, as amended,and
tatmtes, 1925, raising
in part a% follorsr
there are many.d!xntmmte being
oounty for reoord by the oounty
noles of the4Government, it irr
at I&- Hsrriagton, otm cooaty
T% a rulm #ma the Attorney Qelreral,
ereby request aam% at the earliest
moment, a8 Mr. E%rrln@oa Is hoMing
up the reeardine of acme b%oau%% they hare not
bean filed aaoording to and ia .k%eplngwith Art-
fole 3988, VbrQOQ’S A. 0. 5. oited abme.*.
Article 6629, supra, provide6 aa hollows:
"All bargains, aalsa a& other %mv%~-
ames whatever, of w land, teneaegts and
hereditemeata. vðer th%j =ay be made fOr
passing any eats+& OS i'rmhold of inherttanoe
Honorable B. IL Carter, Page 2
or for a tena of yeara; and deeds of aettle-
ment upon marriage, whether land, money or
other personal thing;'and all deeda of trust
and mortgages shell be void as to all oreditors
and aubaequent purohasers for a valuable oon-
slde:etlon without notice, unless they shall
be aoknowledged or proved and filed with the
olsrk, to be reoorded as required by law; bat'
the eame as b%tweeQ the parties aQd their
heir%, and aa to all %ubs%qu%Qt~purohaaore,
with QOtiO% th%r%Of or WithOUt valuable OOQ-
aideration, ahall be valid aQd blndl.ng.f
Artlele 39SC, Revised Civil Statutes, providee
and fix%% the various fees and ohare%% that the clerk8 of
the aounty oourt are authorlsed ti reoeive for fillag
and reoordin6 suoh iMtrMeQtt3.
Artlole SOS& Revfeed Civil Statute%, a6 amended,
and it.8relevant protlslons, reads a8 tollewe:
* . . . Ro oouutj alerti*hall be oompellqd to
kilo o? r%oo+ any iQ8trtmeQt of writin& perrftted
m required by law to be r%eerded ltatllthe pay-
ment or tender 0r paym%Qt Ottall legal fee8 for.
eaoh filiug or reaording ha@ been~made. Roth&
herein ,ehallbe held to inelude pap%rs QP iQetrQ-
meritsfiled or recorded in mtits pending ia the
oounty court."
Be note that you state in your letter that Mlt-
chell County with a population of lC,lBS does QOt some
ander the salary law but that the eoQQty clerk 1s oom-
penaated on 831aQQQa1 fee basle.
Tour request ralaea the prdstaryqueatlon a6 to
whether or not euoh statutory filing and reoordlng tees
would be considered a tax. % have reviewed nwnereas
Federal and Stat8 deoisions and de QOt Simd any oaee
directly in point wher8iQ suoh fee%, a% authorized in otz
statutea, for flllng and recrordfagin%t rllmmlts of record,
are held to be a tax and as %uoh, %XelQptiOQweuld apply
to instrummtalltl%a of the Federal gOvernm%zktLtr The vi%w,
however, that suoh would not b% held a tax ee%@s stroQ@ly
supported by the language of Xx. Juatioe Role% ia Federal
Land Bank V. Croesland, 26lR. S. 394, 69 L. Ed. 103, 43
sup. Gt. Rep. ?S!i:
Eonorable B. lf. Carter, Page 3
"Of ooume. the State is not bound to
furnish ita re&3try for nothitg. It ma2
ohamze a zeaaonable i%% to meet th XD9QSO
O? the iQBtitUtiOQ. But in this eza8"the
``lslature ha% hOQ%stly diatlQgut%hed be-
tween the fee and the additional requirements
that it frankly reao~nlzer aa a tax. I? it
attempted to disguise the tax by aoniouQdiQg
the tw%, the oourts would be oalled upon to
oonsider how far the oharge exceeded the re-
quirement of.support, a% when an excessive oharge
la pad% ?or lnspeoting srtialea in lQtsr8tate oom-
meroe. D. E. Foote t Co. vs. Stanley, 2SZ U.S.
404, 58 L. Bd. 696, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep, S77."
That Oongreas has the power to oreate, or oaaee
to be areated, oorporatlonswhloh aot a% goreramental
ln8trumntalltle~ to at least a limited extent, and olothe
such lnstru8%Qtalltiea with exemptions from taxation,
appears to be well established. The prlnalpl% apparently
608% further and holda that goverQmeQta1 iaetrumeintali-
ties are not aubjeot to etate taxation aul%%s expressly
so npeolfled by an aat OS Congress. The dootrlne of
imuuQity was first P?enumiatsd IQ the o&se o? Nsbdlloah
vm. Xarylnnd, 4 Wheat 516, 4 L. Fd. 599, where it wa%
held that the State of Maryland had no power to tax her
national bank&
ti the NoCullooh vs. Maryland oaae, Eupra, thlrr
immunity waa derided:
"The stataa have no power, by ttixatloaor
otherwise, to retard, imp%de, burden or ia @uy
maQQer oontrol the operations of the aoneti-
tut.tional
laws enaoted by Congress to oarr iQt0
ex8outioQ the poviersvested in the generaI
gOV8rQQent.~
Viereoognlze the above principle that the
Supreme Court of the Onltsd States haa laid dom that a
state may not tax the Federal goverw8nt or its lnetru-
mentalities or do aught whloh would dlreotly interfere
with lta lawrul operations. The 0~l.ybasis, ther%fore, for
whioh the iPtpoaltlouof such service charge8 aa protlded
by our etatutes oould be oonstrued a tax is that suoh
Honorable B. R. Carter, Page 4
materially i.nterSereswith the due, expedient and orderly
prOO8dUr8 OS the Federal gOVerQtS%Q$While in th8 exeralse
Of it6 OOQbtitUtiOQ01 pOK8rS.
*Pees .requlred to be paid by individuala to
publfo oS.:fcer%ordlnarlly are not aomldered to
be taxes. Thue, a fee asse888d to pay the ox-
pmaes of litigation,and whleh oompemate8 oae of
the OfSloera of the eoIvt for hi8 servlaea, 18
not a tax. So a fee bpelred for the reaordl~g
and flll~g of oertlflaatea of lneorporatlon,
baseC OQ the amuQt of oapital stook, in not a
tax it would aem, if wrely to dompsnsate the
oSS~aer for asrvloea perfamed* . . Q~:;Y; Tax-
ation Srd Rd. Vol. 1
Barrdon vs. Willis, ~%%pi5~% Aa. Rep. 604;
State I'x.Rel. D. Atklason, sto. Railway Co. T.
Board of County Coml86loaera. 4 lisbraaka 537,
19 Am. Rep. 641.
It 1% submitted that saoh ohargea for flll~g and
reaordlng IQatrumeQte under the abate atiatateawould not
materially interfere with the due, %XpOdi%nt aad orderly
prooeOure OS the Federal gov%rma%Qt and that tlsasrth%
oases anb rules laid down by tit% ?%d%ral Suprera Court,
that auoh f8%% ar% taxes oanaot b% logiaallybed&ii&d,
It has long been an acroeptedrule of law that propwty
armed by a public body devoted to publlo ~4% e~ennotb%
taxed by another govemmeatal body. Klthout att%mptlQ&
to distinguish bGtw%%Q the variow Federal bStrUmSQtal-
ltles, or question their lawful and aoQstltutiona1 pur-
poses, we oannot help but not8 the feat that Federal
expenditures IQ the form of loam aeoured by aortgages,
deeda of trust, and other ahar~atsriatia debentures, QoQ-
aeded eovermaent owned, Ser public parposea and exe ted
Srom taxation by state goter%%mnt%.do not partake =! % anf
ohawe OS status, raterlally lnareasing or deomasing
Federal reV8QUOS or advan$a&%8 Q8oaaaarlly derived th*r%-
from si~&plyby taking:advantage OS the orderly prOt*OtiOA
or our state laws and applying for that 88OuritY by the
payment of reasonable and uQfim% Siitig and r*oOrdlQf$
feee authorgzed aad fixed by state laws for euoh servlO%a.
Honorable 8. W. Carter, Page 5
r
In the decent oaae of Jame8 VS. Dravo Contract-
ins co., 502 0. S. 134, 58 Sup. Ct. Rep. 208, the Suprae
I
Court of the United Statea held that a noa-dIeor~j.natoly
West Virginia gross sales and Inoonietax wae oolleotable
from an independent oontraotor holding a oon'treotwith
the Federalsgovernment for oonatruotion of look@ and dam
in navigable atreams In the state, even it the tar fn-
oreaeed the ooet to the Federal government, e:inoethe tax
ma not laid upon the Federal government, it8 oifloem or
property, was not laid upon the oontraot of the lederal
Indian Hotoayo1.oCergany vs. Upited $tatem, teg 8, g.
590, 51 Sup. c;t., Rep. 601:
*It Is an established prlaolpleof our ooa-
etItutIonal.eyetem or duel government that the
instmmentalitlea, msam sad op8ratlqne whereby
the United State8 exerolrrecr it8 gotemuital
powera are exempt tror tamstUn by tha atotem,
andthatthe lnatrmwntalltles,naor an&bpora-
tlons whereby the 6tatea exert the~gomrlmeNn1
powem belongin& to them are equally axem&* trsr
taxation by the United States. This priaol lo
le Implied from the Indepeadenoe of the netP. one1
and state goorernmentewithin their reepeotfve
epherea end from the prorialons Of the OOMtI-
tution whloh look to the maintenanoeof the
dual uptern. Celleotor v. Day, 11 lfall.llS
$25 129 .2O L. Ed. 122; Wlll~nta i. Bina, kee
v. ii, 2$, 224, 225, 61.8. da. 190; 95 L, Ed.
9M. Where the prinaiple applies It is not
affeoted br the amount of the pertlo~lar tax
oi the extant of the resulting Interierenoe;
but is abdlati. l&Oullooh T. Maryland, 4
+&eat, 514, 450, 4 L. Ed. 599; United States
t. BeltImore t Ohio B. Co., 19 Wall. 322,
S29, 21 L. W, 599; JOhIWOn to Maryland, 264
U. 8. 51, S5, 56, 41 S. Ct. 16, 65 L. Ed. 126;
#illeepie 9. Oklahoma, 259 U. 9. 501, 505, 42 8. Ct. 1919
;; 2 z. E; Qaandall t. Beyada, 6 Wall. SS, 44-44,
. l .
R
RonorebZe 8. M. Certer, PaEa 6
Tbet eiiohf!llng +d reaordiug fear euthorlaed
tu t.eoherged by our laws atfcrd :nUlreotly revenuc to,
the stat@ would not alone juetlfp auah fsea ocarlaered
6 tax. &ml ttiet suck teen are recsccabl? and noo-dieorirp-
Ir;atoryoan herdiy be gusetlonsd. i-8 the ll?c of our
-late govarnziant dapnnde upou the Loe?ul exerolen,ot
Zkte gowernacatal powers, it oaunot be aeld thet euoh
has, unbar our dui eyetea of govsnwmnt, afrotie may
greeter lmpedimont, burden or unlawful exeroiee or aon+
trol by reputrlng euah obllgetlone to be set tJmo u& l
reaeoneble charge for 6anlaee to the Federal &or#?a-
eicntfma ite lnetrum6ntalltlae than euoh exetzptioae
would llksly destroy or oeet undue burdens upon the
local state government itaol?. We find the follow&n6
lenyr%e In Baldwin ve. Ooldfrenk. 88 Tee. 249, 51 8.W. i
1064 :
Ror lTe Fsee paiU to pub110 oFFi-
awe ~&~e’ln the.gdaeral rtenoo notrithetCDCuql
tbet the m&o OF,proridiug ao&eetlon t6 the
ublis servants r~liorea the tro8euror from pep
nga eeiory. ...I)
fl 40 PC. 3urle. 8 2 p. U.
YOU are respeotiull~ lboieed that it I* the
opinion err tkiie dspartmant the%euah written laetrum$af?
luthorls& under mtfole 6629``. &Mae4 Cl+11 @OlUtM,
loBb, eau proeen8ed to the ooantp &ark ror Ftiflag orid
reoorUfng by 8@onoLer or teetrU#nt&t%ee of $t;aI~
Feasti government, era not exempt fron the.pamen*
or lqpi Feae authorhad to be oharfmd by the clerk
ader t&s rowlelone of hrtfole SftJO, R#*Sead ClYil f?te-
totes, lPBg, euoh firm not being l tex .uponthe Fod~rel
governmnt .
Yours very truly
:?wx:BT
APPROVEDOCT20, 1939
.-.
ATTORNEY GJCNEFtAL
OFTEXAS