Judges: JIM MATTOX, Attorney General of Texas
Filed Date: 12/2/1987
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Honorable Bobby Joe Mann Palo Pinto County Attorney P.O. Box 1450 Mineral Wells, Texas 76067
Re: Whether a taxing unit may grant a homestead exemption to persons 65 years of age or older while denying the exemption to disabled persons (RQ-1247)
Dear Mr. Mann:
Article
Article
(b) From and after January 1, 1973, the governing body of any county, city, town, school district, or other political subidvision of the State may exempt by its own action not less than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) of the market value of residence homesteads of persons, married or unmarried, including those living alone, who are under a disability for purposes of payment of disability insurance benefits under Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or its successor or of married or unmarried persons sixty-five (65) years of age or older, including those living alone, from all ad valorem taxes thereafter levied by the political subdivision. As an alternative, upon receipt of a petition signed by twenty percent (20%) of the voters who voted in the last preceding election held by the political subdivision, the governing body of the subdivision shall call an election to determine by majority vote whether an amount not less than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000) as provided in the petition, of the market value of residence homesteads of disabled persons or of persons sixty-five (65) years of age or over shall be exempt from ad valorem taxes thereafter levied by the political subdivision. An eligible disabled person who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older may not receive both exemptions from the same political subdivision in the same year but may choose either if the subdivision has adopted both. (Emphasis added.)
Section
. . . .
(d) In addition to the exemptions provided by Subsections (b) and (c) of this section [setting forth the so-called "mandatory" residence homestead exemptions that must be granted by school districts], an individual who is disabled or is 65 or older is entitled to an exemption from taxation by a taxing unit of a portion (the amount of which is fixed as provided by Subsection (e) of this section) of the appraised value of his residence homestead if the exemption is adopted either:
(1) by the governing body of the taxing unit; or
(2) by a favorable vote of a majority of the qualified voters of the taxing unit at an election called by the governing body of the taxing unit, and the governing body shall call the election on the petition of at least 20 percent of the number of qualified voters who voted in the preceding election of the taxing unit.
(e) The amount of an exemption adopted as provided by Subsection (d) of this section is $3,000 of the appraised value of the residence homestead unless a larger amount is specified by:
(1) the governing body authorizing the exemption if the exemption is authorized as provided by Subdivision (1) of Subsection (d) of this section; or
(2) the petition for the election if the exemption is authorized as provided by Subdivision (2) of Subsection (d) of this section.
(f) Once authorized, an exemption adopted as provided by Subsection (d) of this section may be repealed or decreased or increased in amount by the governing body of the taxing unit or by the procedure authorized by Subdivision (2) of Subsection (d) of this section. In the case of a decrease, the amount of the exemption may not be reduced to less than $3,000 of the market value.
In construing a statute, we are required to give effect to the evident intent of the legislature when it enacted the provision. Minton v. Frank,
The relevant sentence of article VIII, section 1-b(b) declares: "An eligible disabled person who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older may not receive both exemptions from the same political subdivision in the same year but may choose either if the subdivision has adopted both." (Emphasis added.) The controlling principle in giving effect to a constitutional amendment is to give effect to the intention of the framers of the amendment and of the people who adopted it. Gragg v. Cayuga Independent School District,
It is clear that the legislature intended, when it proposed the amendment, and the people intended, when they adopted the amendment, that political subdivisions be empowered to offer the "optional" residence homestead exemption to one of the specified classes of persons without offering it to both. Accordingly, we conclude that the governing body of a taxing unit may offer the residence homestead exemptions to one of the specified classes of persons, i.e. either persons who are 65 years of age or older or persons who are disabled, without offering the residence homestead exemption to both.
Very truly yours,
Jim Mattox Attorney General of Texas
Mary Keller Executive Assistant Attorney General
Judge Zollie Steakly Special Assistant Attorney General
Rick Gilpin Chairman Opinion Committee
Prepared by Jim Moellinger Assistant Attorney General
Gragg v. Cayuga Independent School District , 19 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 347 ( 1976 )
Minton v. Frank , 20 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 10 ( 1976 )
Leander Independent School District v. Cedar Park Water ... , 15 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 296 ( 1972 )
Calvert v. Texas Pipe Line Company , 18 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 146 ( 1974 )