Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1942 )

._’ .
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS
AUSTIN
Honorable E. L, Shelton
County Auditor
Johneon County
Oleburne, Tema,
Denr Sir;
Vie recofved your 1 ezbor 10, ,1948,
relating to tha above nlon~tio
ter io aelf-e~planotory and
who have take
selling this
times cd.1 of
I do not !mo
velopaents in thi a
he law providers
e in developed
ae advise me whether or
ghts end royalties ,ere aubjeot
, If suoh be taxable I think
and the variour?l oountios should
to the dootrine that minemle in plnoe nre PertI;fiihe
realty and me cnpable of omerahip in place.
equally true thnt the minornl.s in lnce my be severed
fron the surface estate by nppropr r ate conveymom, The
eevermoe my bo m7de by an exceijtion or rus3rvation In
the d00a, :,Aen mob s.evcrmcc 1 e acoornplinhsd, there
exista two real property estates, to-wit: an estate
in the minerals in plnco and m e3tr;te in the reminder
.-
,
Honorable E. L, Shelton,’ pass 2
of the land. Rumphreys-Moxia Co, ,vs J. L. Ckmmon, 118
Texes 247. In diocuooin5 these eztntes in land, the
Oourt of Civil Appeals at Texarkana, in the very rooont
oa%e styled County School Trustees of Upshur County
~a. l!roe, 154 8. ?i, (26) 935 (‘.:ri~t rafuaed for wnnt of
merit), said I
“The lnw is settled in this State that
minerals in plaoe may be severed from the sur-
face; that l$hen so severed they oonatituta
separate and dietinot’estatesi th;?t the nfea
simple title” to the surfaoe entnto may be in
one parson and the “fee eimpls, title* to the
mineral estate in another pessoni thsy eaoh
constitute *real propexty” ana oonveyanoe there-
of is 0ontrolloU by laws governing conveyanoes
of renl oatate as dietlnguinhable froa personal
property.. Stephens Oounty v,,Mid-Ransaa Oil
& OH8 CO,, 115 TOX, 160, 254 El. ‘il. 290, 29
A.L.R. 506; Humphreya-Zexia 08. v, Gammon,
115Tex. 247, 254 3. Xt 296; Qriasom v. Andeer-
eon, 125 Tex, 26, 79 8, :I. 26 619,*
The Supreme Court of Texas, in the sass of
Bheffield va. Iiocjg. 77 5, YJ. (2d) 1021, has held that
unaaorued royalty, whether peyable in money or in kind,
is real property subjeot to taxation In the county wherb
the property is located. There are, no doubt, nmtnyral-
unble mineral eotp.tes in.this State which have never bssn
developed. t?evertholess, muoh estates are eubjeat to
tnxation. Texoe Co. vs. Daubbert , 160 5. W. 129 (affirraed
by Supreme Court in 176 2. Vi. 7177 .
Article 8, Seation 1 of the Uonstitution oi
Texas provides, in perti as followsr
“Taxation ahall be equal and uniform. All
property in this State, ,whether owned by natural
persons or oorporetions, other than nn~niolpal,
shall be taxed in proportion to its valuei whioh
shall be ascertained as may be provided by luw.*
In o&,otininy: the value of the mineral eetatee
in guestlon for tax purposes, we refer you to Artlole 7811,
V. A. 0. S;, which provides, in part, aa follows:
*Hereafter when any person, firm or corporation
renders his, their or it8 prop-rty in this State
Honorable lL L. Shelton, pase 3
for taxation to any tax asses&or, and makes oath
as to the kind, chnrnctor, qualitygand quantfiiy
of such pro, nrty, and the said oifiber accepting
f3aiu renait l on front such parson rimi ,or oorpore-
tion of such property is satist’ied that it is
correctly and ,proper,lg valued aooordin5 to the
reaeonable caeh market value of stich property
on the market at the time of its rendition, hi3
shall list the ssme accordinglpy but, ii the afmw-
acr ie satisfied that th(t value io below the reaBon-
able oash mr:rkat v.?J,us of ou& pro erty, ha shall at
oboe pStl,ce on said retidition oppO8s te each place Of -.
property PO rendered an amount equal to the V3aeon-
able oe.trhmarket.value of such property at the’t$aM
or itr rendltlon, and if much property mhall br
found to hove no msrlcet value by muoh offloW, then
at such mua am said of’fioer shnZl deerp the rml or
intrinfl$c rnlus of the proparty! , , *
hit iollowo from what we &ave said that the
rro-called mineral rights and mpaltiae mentioned Sn g‘O,Wr
letter are subjoot, to ad Valoren taxes.
Yours very trulj,