Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

PRICE DANIEL
ATTORNEYGENERAL
December 8, 1952
‘Hon. Riley Eugene Fletcher Opinion No. V-1543
County Attorney
Navarro County Re: Authority of the Commission-
Corsicana, Texas ers’ Court, sittizg as a Board
of Equalization, to place a tax-
payer’s 1952 assessed vslua-
tion at a figure which will com-
pensate for an erroneously high
Dear Mr. Fletcher: tax valuation in 1951.
You request the opinion of this office upon the question
presented in a letter addressed to you which isin part as follows:
“The Tax Assessor and Collector of this county
in computing the amount of State and County taxes
due for the year 1951 on the rendition of the shares
of the capital stock of [name of bank] made an error
in arriving at the taxable valuation in that he did not
use the same formula applied to other bank stock,
which error resulted in an overpayment of around
$1200.00 to the State and County.
u
. . .*
YThe Commissioners Court wishes to rectify
this error and desires that you submit the follow-
ing question to the Attorney General:
“‘Does the Commissioners Court of Navarro
County, sitting as a Board of Equalization, have
the authority to deduct from the assessed valua-
tion of taxpayer’s property for the year 1952 the
excess amount for which the property was erro-
neously valued for the year 1951, so as to permit
the taxpayer to receive credit for the amount of
overpayment of State and County taxes for the year
19517’”
The commissioners’ court does not have any constitu-
tional or statutory authority to credit an overpayment of taxes
for one year against the taxes for a subsequent year. The court
Hon. Riley Eugene Fletcher, page 2 (V-1543)
is one of limited jurisdiction under the Constitution of this State.
Section 18 of Article V of the Constitution provides that the court
,a
. . . shall exercise such powers and jurisdic-
tion over all county business as is conferred by this
Constitution and the laws of the State or as may be
hereafter prescribed.”
Under this constitutional provision it has been uniform-
ly held that the commissioners’ court possesses and exercises on-
ly such power as the Constitution itself or the Legislature, con-’
sistent with the Constitution, may confer upon it. Bland v. Orr,
90 Tex. 492, 39 S.W. 558 (1897); Slaughter v. Hardernan County,
139 S.W. 662 (Tex.Civ.App. 1911, error ref.): Landman v. State,
97 S.W.2d 264 (Tex.Civ.App. 1936). Galveston, H. & S.A. Ry. Co.
v. Uvalde Count , 167 S.W.Zd 305 (Tex.Civ.App. 1942, error ref.
w.o.m.), states t e rule concisely in this language:
“The Commissioners’ Court of a county has only
such powers as are expressly or by necessary impli-
cation given it by the Constitution and statutes of this
State. [Citing cases.] . . *”
A comparatively recent case by the Supreme Court,
Canales v. Laughlin, 147 Tex. 169, 214 S.W. 451 (1948), has stated
ihe same thmg m the following language:
“The Constitution does not confer on the commis-
sioners courts ‘general authority over the county busi-
ness’ and such courts can exercise only such powers
as the Constitution itself or the statutes have ‘specif-
ically conferred upon them’. See Mills County v. Lam-
90 Tex. 603, 606, 40 S,,W 403 404168+?085.
A
137 Tex. 201. 203. 152’S.W.‘2d
Whrle the commissioners courts have a broad discre-
tion in exercising powers expressly conferred on them,
nevertheless the legal basis for any action by any such
court must be ultimately found in the Constitution or
the statutes.”
An examination of the Constitution and statutes reveals
that no expressed power has been conferred upon the commission-
ers’ court to credit overpayment of taxes against the taxes owing
by the taxpayer for subsequent years nor does this power arise by
necessary implication from any power expressly conferred. The
answer to your question, therefore, is in the negative.
. .
Hon. Riley Eugene Fletcher, page 3 (V-1543)
This does not mean, however, that the taxpayer is with-
out a remedy. Since the overpayment of taxes for the year 1951 re-
sulted from a clerical error which caused the taxpayer to pay upon
a higher valuation than that actually fixed by the Board of Equaliza-
tion, this error may be corrected by the commissioners’ court to
speak the truth and reflect the correct valuation which the court
as a Board of Equalization in fact determined. The error does not
invalidate the assessment. The taxes should have been paid upon
the valuation actually fixed by the Board of Equalization. It is
this actual valuation that constituted the real assessment and not
the erroneous valuation. This is covered in Attorney General’e
Opinion V-485 (1948).
Since the taxes have actually been paid, we see no prac-
tical reason for correcting the error except to bring the assess-
ment in line with the value upon which the taxes should have ac-
tually been paid. The taxpayer would be entitled to a refund of the
excess paid over the true valuation fixed by the Board of Equali-
zation. The commissioners’ court would have the authority to or-
der a refund of the county portion of the taxes. The Legislature
would have the authority to make an appropriation to reimburse
the bank for this overpayment of the State’s part of the taxes for
the reason that in our opinion under the facts submitted by you the
overpayment resulted from a mistake of fact and not of law. The
bank may present a claim to the next session of the Legislature.
SUMMARY
The commissioners’ court does not have author-
ity to authorize a credi,t against taxes owing for a
subsequent year by reason of an overpayment in a.prior
year. As the overpayment resulted from a clerical er-
ror in entering the value upon the assessment rolls at
a higher rate than fixed by the commissionera’ court
(Board of Equalization), the error may be corrected to
reflect the real action of the court in fixing the value.
The taxpayer is entitled to a refund from the county which
may be ordered by the commissioners’ court for the over-
payment and the State’s part of the taxes may be refunded
Hon. Riley Eugene Fletcher, page 4 (V-1543)
by an appropriation by the Legislature.
APPROVED: Yours very truly,
W. V. Ceppert PRICE DANIEL
Taxation Division Attorney General
E. Jacobson
Executive Assistant
Charles D. Mathews
First Assistant Assistant
LPL:mw
.