. .



### ~TEEATTORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS

Honorable J. W. Edgar Commlssloner Opinion No. (C- 457) Texas Education Agency 201 East 11th Street Austin, Texas Re: Whether a consolidated independent school district mayuse the tax assessments of the independent school / district which ie consolidated into it for purposes of asseselng taxes for the consolidated district, when the district included has not levied any tax pursuant to its assesDear Mr. Edgar: sment8D You ask our opinion in answer to two questions relating to assessment for ad valorem taxes of property within a former independent school district which has been consolidated with another Independent school district under Article 

### 2806,Vernon’s Civil Statutes. Your questions and our answers are: Question 1:

“Should orlegally maythe San Marco8 Condolidated Independent School District’s tax office accept or use the Martindale di.strict tax renditions and tax valuations. for 1965 as recited assessed prior to May 22, 1965; or Our Answer: No. Question 2:

“Legally should the said consolidated district also assess or re-assess the former

-2172-Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 2 Opinion No. (C-457)

Martindale district taxable property this year -- such assessed valuations, to be presented to Us board of equalization as assessed valuations of other taxable properties within the consolidated district? Our Answer: Yes. FACTS The necessary facts for consideration are as follows. OnMay22, 

### 1965,the, San Marco8 Independent S~chool District inHays County and the Martindale Independent School District of Caldwell County vote&under Article 

### 2806to. consolidate. Weassume as correct your statements that the consolidation was legal in all respects and that the new:consolidated district shortly will ,vote a maintenance tax and bond assumption which also will be legal. The San Marcos.district has its own tax assessor and collector. ~TheMartindale district assessed its’own taxes, having its own assessor and it used the County Tax AssessorCollector for the collection thereof as authorized by Article 2792, Vernon’s Civil Statutes. For example, in 1964, ‘the taxpayers would timely render their property for county-state and school taxes to the County Tax Assessor-Collector. The Martindale assessor would get his information as to such renditions from the County Tax Assessor-Collector’s office; he would then make an assessment for the .school taxes by applying an “across-the-board’!percentage increase,prepare his tax rolls about July showing such determined valuations and forward same to the County Tax Assessor-Collector for collection. Across the top of the tax roll, the district assessor would indicate that the tax rate of the district was $1.50,,and the taxes would be collected based on the tax rolls so submitted by applying the $1.50 rate. As of May22, 1965, (when consolidation was voted)~ the Martindale renditions in 1965 followed the practice recited above. The Assessor has not. submitted his assessments for I action by a board of equalization and has not prepared the 1965 tax rolls; nor had the Board of Trustees of the former Martindale district prior tom said May22 levied a 1965 school tax.

-il73-.

Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 3 Opinion No. 

### (C-457)

The San Marco8 Independent School District has assessed all taxable properties within its former district and the consolidated district's equalization board has been appointed to begin its work thereon In the Immediate future. OUROPINION Wedo not consider any aspect of delinquent taxes in the Martindale district, nor do we consider any aspect of either the maintenance tax or the bond assumption tax as applied to that District excepting only as to certain procedures relative to their assessment necessary to answer your questions. Wediscuss your two questions ,together. The nature of the power of an independent school district to tax is stated in Geffert v. Yorktown Independent School Dist., 

### Ego S.W. 

### 1083(c A 1927) in the court stated xreference to the tzzngPiiwer of %z?efendant independent school district:

"It Is elementary that corporations such as defendant in error are special creatures of the statute and have such powers only as are specially given or are implied as a necessary incident to those expressly conferred. Such districts have no inherent power to tax the citizen. Such power is conferred by the statute, and, being a special grant of authority, the power must be exercised in strict conformity with the mandatory direction of the Legislature. Nowhere is this principal more rigidly adhered to than in the matter of taxation.

. . ." (at p. 1084) Articles 2791 and 2792 of Vernon's Civil Statutes govern assessment and collection of taxes by both the original the San Marco8 and Martindale school districts and by the newly consolidated district. Neither of these statutes, either explicitely or implicltely, authorize the new district to accept or use the Martindale district's renditions and tax valuations for 

### 1965in assessing any taxes it mayassess and levy. Wemight conclude our opinion at this point; .but we will add the following in further support of our holdings.

-2B74-.

Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 4 Opinion No. (C-457)

Your recitation of facts submitted to us states that the Boardiof Trustees of the former Martindale district prior to the date of the election on -cay 22, 1965, at which consolidation was effected had not levied a 1965 school tax. Taxes do not accrue against property until after there has been both an 

### assessmentand levy. Attorney General Opinion V-93 (1949). Because no such tax had been levied the Board of Trustees of the former Martindale district maynot now make any levy of any tax; the taxing power over th.e entire new consolidated district has passed into the exclusive hands of the new district, to be exercised by that District in conforndty to Article 2791, 2792 and other relevant provisions of our Civil Statutes. Geffert,,v. Yorktown Indeeendent School Dlst., supra; Yorktown Independent School Di ti 8

. v. Afferbach, 12 B.li.2d

e Ind. Sch.

l

A valid assessment of property is an indlepens&ble prerequleite to the validity of a tax, and involves the preparation of a list of t)le property subject to assessment and taxation. White v. NcGlll, 109 S.W.2d 110 ther grounds, 2

131 Tax. 231, 11 Assessment of taxes involves more it requires the exer~clee of the’ discretion of the leeessor. Electra Independent School Dist. v. Waggoner Letate. 140 Tex.

. U3 1bU S W2d b4> b>Z (1943) 8 111van ‘v. 193’ (Tax.&v :App

. 1408)
. S.ee A&&es 1044 Bitter, 113 S.W. d 73% VelllOn’e Civil Statutes, relating to aesessment of tk by ~ltlSS, as reterenced in Articles 2791 and 2792. Section 1 of Article VIII of our Constitution requires that ad .valorem taxes throughout the new district be SqUal and uniform. This Section 1 in Its pertinent portion reads as follows :

“Taxation shall be equal and uniform. All property in this State, whether owned by natura? persons or corporations, other then rvniCipa1,

-21757::.,.

### HonorableJ. W. Edgar,Page 5 OpinionNo. (C-457)



### shallbe ,taxed

In proportionto its value, which shallbe ascertainedas may be providedby law. s -" If ,the SanMarcosConsolidatedIndependentSchool Districttstax officeacceptsand uses thepriorMartindale tax assessmentsand taxvaluationsfor theyear 

### 1965, taxationof the propertywithinthe consolidated district wouldnot be "equaland uniform."SeeMullinsv. Colfax ConsolidatedSchoolDist., supra;WeatherlyIndependenT SchoolDist.v. Hughes,41 S.W,2d445 (Tex.Civ.App. 1951). SUMMARY _------ The SanMarco8Consolidated Independent 

### SchoolDistrictmay

### not use the tax assessments 

### of theMartindaleIndependentSchoolDistrict butmust assessall propertythroughoutthe consolidated

districta,t an 

### equaland uniform 

### rate. Very trulyyours, WAGGONER

CARR 

### AttorneyGeneralof Texas

By:AssistantAttorney General 

### WEA:sJl APPROVED.: OPINIONCOMMITTEE: W. V. Geppert,Chairman John F, P&tit J. Ho Broadhurst GordonC. Cass
. John Banks APPROVEDFOR THEATTORNEYGENERAL BY: T. B, Wright