. . 

~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 may use 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: sment 8 D 

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 may the 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. 

On May 22, 1965, the, San Marco8 Independent S~chool District 

inHays County and the Martindale Independent School District 

of Caldwell County vote&under Article 2806 to. consolidate. 

We assume 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. ~The Martindale 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 May 22, 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 May 22 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. 

OUR OPINION 

We do 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. We discuss 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 

the assessment and collection of taxes by both the original 

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 1965 in assessing any taxes it may assess 

and levy. We might 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 

assessment and levy. Attorney General Opinion V-93 (1949). 

Because no such tax had been levied the Board of Trustees of 

the former Martindale district may not 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 8 ti . 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, 131 Tax. 231, 11 2 

Assessment of taxes involves more 

it requires the exer~clee of the’ discretion of the l eeessor. 

Electra Independent School Dist. v. Waggoner Letate. 140 Tex. 

. U3 1bU S W 2d b4> b>Z (1943) 8 111 van ‘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::.,. 
Honorable J. W. Edgar, Page 5 Opinion No. (C-457) 

shall be ,taxed In proportion to its value, 

which shall be ascertained as may be provided by law. s -" 

If ,the San Marcos Consolidated Independent School 

Districtts tax office accepts and uses the prior Martindale 

tax assessments and tax valuations for the year 1965, 

taxation of the property within the consolidated district 

would not be "equal and uniform." See Mullins v. Colfax 

Consolidated School Dist., supra; Weatherly IndependenT 

School Dist. v. Hughes, 41 S.W,2d 445 (Tex.Civ.App. 1951). 

_------ SUMMARY 

The San Marco8 Consolidated Independent 

School District may not use the tax assessments 

of the Martindale Independent School District 

but must assess all property throughout the 

consolidated district a,t an equal and uniform 

rate. 

Very truly yours, 

WAGGONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

By: 

Assistant Attorney General 

WEA:sJl 

APPROVED.: 

OPINION COMMITTEE: 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

John F, P&tit 

J. Ho Broadhurst 

Gordon C. Cass . 

John Banks 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: T. B, Wright