Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Honorable H. D. Glover Opinion No. ``-675
County Attorney
Reeves County Re: Disposition of fees
Pecos, Texas received by County Tax'
Assessor-Collector for
performing assigned
duties and for assessing
and collecting taxes for
Dear Mr. Glover: Independent School District.
Your letter of May 22,,1959, requesting an opinion
on the above.subject, reads in.part as follows:
L.
"Please advise me whether or not the
Tax Assessor-Collector in a county with a
population of less than 20,000 who is com-
pensated on a salary basis in the amount of
$6,215.00 and who acts,as Tax Assessor-Col-
lector for two Independent School Districts
within the County is allowed to retain as
fees of office an additional amount of 15 ,
of currentcollections, l$ of271 S.W. 132
(Tex 1925) err ref'd. and Came&n County v. Fox,
42 S:t?zdA&' affld' Com:App 61 ,S.W.2d 483 Reh.Den.,
Com.App., 64 S.W.2d 140. See'Also Attorney Gineralls Letter
Opln~ionon Request R2094, a copy of which is enclosed.
As to fees paid under Article 2792: In Nichols v.
Galveston County, 111 Tex. 50, 228 S.W. 547 (1921),
. . .
Honorable H. D. Glover, page 5 Opinion No. ~-675
appellant County Assessor contended that fees paid him for
assessing and collecting~independent school district taxes
were for ex officio service and as such not accountable as
fees of office. In overruling this contention, the Court
said (p.549):
"After the statutes were enacted providing for
drainage districts and independent school dis-
tricts, and tb.atwh.enordered to do so by the .
properly constituted authority the county assessor
of taxes shall assess these taxes, the assessment
of such taxes by him become the usual and general
duties of his office; Andythe performance of these
duties by him is made mandatory."
The same reasoning would apply to the collection of these
taxes.
It was therefore held that such fees were account-
able as fees of office. (We note in passing that officers
receiving a salary are specifically prohibited from receiving
any ex officio compensation by Sec. 6(b) of Art. 3912e.
Sec. 11 of Art. 38831 provides, however, three instances in
which extra compensa,tionmay be paid, none of which-are
material here.)
The Nichols case was cited by the court as controlling
authority in Ta lor v. Brewster Count , 144 S.i#.2d314 (Tex.
Civ. App., 194R+j+&r. 4 which held appellant County
Tax Assessor-Collector was aA;ing-as an officer oftthe,
County in collecting taxes for independent school districts
under Art. 2792, and therefore his fees for such service
were accountable as official fees. The theory and intent
of,a salary basis of compensation for county officers, as
opposed to a fee basis, are-well expressed in Attorney General's
Opinion No. 0-3664,'from which we quote:
"In a salary county the fees to which the
officer would be entitled personally if'he
were on the fee system belong to the county.
The officer must collect them for the county
and place them in the Officer's Salary Fund.
It was clearly contemplated by the Legislature
that the salaries of county officers should
be paid largely from fees of office deposited
in the Officers' Salary Fund."
SWMARY
A County Tax Assessor-Collector who is
compensated on a salary basis must account
. . .
Honorable H. D. Glover, page 6 Opinion No. ``-675
for and turn over to the County the fees
collected under Articles 7258a and 7331,
V.C.S., and also'the 15 of assessments and
1% of collections provided by Art. 2792,
V.C.S., for assessing and collecting inde-
pendent school district taxes.
Yours very truly,
WILL WILSON
Attorney General of Texas
JRI:cm
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE:
Geo. P. Blackburn, Chairman
W. R. Scruggs
Gordon C. Cass a.,,
Linward Shivers
L. P. Lollar
REVIEWEDFOR TRE ATTORNEYGENERAL
By: LEONARD PASSMORE