OFFlCE OF THE ATTORNEY QENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. -0. B. Shepprrd 

goaptavllet of Pub110 Aooountr 

ACUtiB, ?0=8 

fear Mr. Sbeppudr 

We are in reoei 

rhloh you enolosed a le 

willlanu, Dlreot 

Texas Unemployme 

Qepartneent Ir 60 

Pub110 Aooounta 

to lsoue 8 wexrlat 

under the faetr re 

or the mm or $22.00, 

l r md that or yr. 

aa ofroot? 

b350, V. A. 0. S., this departarent mqneet.8 your ruling as 

to whether rrrrant should irrue in payment of this benefit 

elaia of $22.00. 
c 

$#& Ooo. IL Sheppard, pa&r 2 

. 

*The quertlon oi offrrat 18 ralrad in the attaohd 

letter iron thr Texa8 Unorrplo~arnt Compeasatlon Oomul8- 

8lOU. Thlr deputment .nay not be dlreotly interested. 

in the question of offret In thla partloular elalm, but 

8infJe the que8tlon arbor in oonneotfon with other olaima 

I will thank you to answbr that queetlon aubmltted to 

thir 60 

s 

l rtment by the Texar Unemployment Compensation 

oo~ralao 0a.e 

*In oonneotlon with the attaohed oertlfloatlon for 

paraent of benefits to the above olalmant, we wish to 

6iv8 you the fo~lowlng raotr 03nrimng our verbal afs01.~408 in 70~ 0rri00 4 rbw 64~8 agot 

“we hate a Judgment againat thir lndlrldual in thr 

amount OS &00.31, plurr aoarued lnterert and penalties. 

This amount ootera delinquent oontrlbutlone wbioh ho 

owed thir Commirsion in hi6 atatua aa an employor 8ubJeot 

to the Texas Uneaployment Oompensation Aot durlag the 

year8 1939 and 1940. 

filed an initial 

On February 9, 19b3, this indlridrul 

for W0.20. 

olaim for bsneiite whloh 18~ approved 

*Ia rlew of A&661@ 4350, V. R, 0. 8.) reletin& to 

the dUtib8 of the OoaptrOll8r, 4d readlng, ‘WO uar3xh8 

ahall be irrued t6 say pemon indebted to the State, or 

to his agent or wdgaee, until ruoh debt Is paid,’ it 

eoourrrd to ua that it wa8 our duty to 0811 thlr matter 

to rour attrntlon and let you deolde the question. 

*Seotloa 15(o) of the Texar Unemployment Compensation 

Aot provider that no assignment, pledge, or enoumbranoe of 

any right to benefltr rhall br rali&; that ‘suoh .right8 to 

beneritr rhall be exempt troa low, ereoutlon, attibhment, 

or any other remedy whataooter proride& for the oolleotloa 

or debti and benefit8 reoeltbd by any lndlrldual. . , shall 

be exempt irom mf remsly rhat6ooTer ior the oollsotlon of 

all debts. . .* Shoe thla languagr indloate8 a olear 

logislatire intent that a olaimant’e right8 to benefltr 

ebould be proteotsd against akbmt any oontingenop, it ma7 

hare eome bearing upon this oa#e. *. 
209 

X08. 6.0. IL mlbrpprra, peg. 3 

WI via of the faot that the boert8 hrto rsoognltod 

the rl&ht of oifret undrr Artlols 4350 quoted above, we 

are also intsrsatod in thr 

we ma offset our olalm or 0 

usstlon a8 to whether or 8ot 

400.5~ against thr mount ot 

bensrits dw thl8 individual IA hi8 sapaoltr a8 8 8laima8t.” 

brtlole b350, 1. A. c. f-t., read8 as fOiiOU8l 

90 warrant 8h0u be lssusd to any parson indebted 

to the State, or to his agent or assignee, until Buoh 

debt is psl6.* 

That the sontrlbutlonaprorlded for in the Texas 

Unemplornent Oompsnsatlon Aot are taxes *other than aih;::oren 

taxes’ is no longer an open question in this State. 

dsnomlnated oontributionr, they are nonstheless taxes. ?riedman 

V. A~UIOM 8umty CO., 151 8. wr (24) 570; Ia r8 llytilyrr, 

D. a., 31 P. Bupp. 977; Lallr v. State, 138 S. W. (2d) 1111. 

Slnoo the item of )l+OO,51 reooversd by the Blat* 

against Frank Ed-rierd Benoit for delinquent oontrlbutlons (tares) 

owing.by him as sn employer, subjeot to the Texas Unemployment 

oompen8titlon Aot aurilig the years 1939 ma 1940, 18 a tax, ths 

question arises as to rhether or aot this tax la a debt owhg 

thr State, or whether or not Benoit '18 B person Indebted to 

the State*, to USUI the l x a o t laaguege et the 8tatutr. That a 

state tax 18 not a debt ln the ordinary aoaeptatioa of the 

tern ha8 been 80 unirereall~ aooepted is our jurlsprudenoo that 

wo do not deem it necessary to site extended l uthorltr. Thr 

tollowlnbj 04888 arr noted: Dollar Joint Stosk Land Bank v, 

Elllr Oounty Levy Improrrmmt Dlstriet Bar 3, 55 8. W. (24) 227r 

’ United State8 v. motor, 266 1. 2721 Beo~ v. Tellsr ++. 

196 ?. 6341 Forest Olty Yanufaoturl co. 

77 P. (28 5u; 

‘1. Ls+y,(Mo.) 3) 8. 1. 

(24) 9841 Boll v’. Trosper, and l nou& is quoted 

tror these earos’to support the aoespted 

f 

enoral rule that taxes 

are not debts or t&t one who owe8 taxer 8 not indebted to the 

Stat*. In the sase of Dallas Joint Stork L8and Bank ot Dal148 

v, Blllr County L-err Inprovelaent Blstrlot No. 3, supr8, the 

OOUrt 80idr 

*A tax is not a debt in the usual and ordln~~ sense 

or the word. CTtl tit ix 01 D id 

OIA Ann 

15,. l l 

541, 3flgh. ~.“226~00~lt~~nv~~~:i0~~~a sd,) 
TO the rimm, err008 ir’tho holdlu Or tudgr t. 0, 

gutohrron, r?r, while tudgb Or th. tdbrrl Dlrtrlot Court ei 

*ho Xoustoa Dirfrtoa aou on thr 5th Olroul8 Ooart or ~ppoalr, 

u the l m 0r md st8tas T. maor, roprrt 

“Th$t thd tax 18 not a d&t, and that lntrrert doer 

not arlrr u&on lt, unl.88 md rxobpt in reoor4anoo with 

t&r prorialoqr oi the rtatate, lr retOle4 br ttm unirareal 

ourr*nt or r&thoklty; l 6 l a 

Jud@ Rutohoron 

oplnioo bl Tudgr 8aaborn, f 

iotib~rurthrr 14th rpproral in an 

a Crcbtrer t. Ma&don, 54 f, 431, 

in ths ronorring laaguq$*: 

*Ten8 are not debtr, 

uprear or lrplled. 

Thor do not rest upon oontraot, 

Thry are lmposod br the le Irlatlrr 

authority without the oonrmt rod egalnet the w f 11 or the 

prronr tar*& to aaintain the ~OTO~UJt, protoot tha 

right8 rnd prftlleger of it8 rubjeotr, or to l eooiapllrh 

some authorlced rptiirl purpo60, Thy 60 not drew intorest, 

l re not eubjeot t0 m-0rr, and 40 m depend ror thrir 

rxistenoo or l roroemant upon the indlrldurl ars~t or thr 

tarpryan.. 

The term ‘dabt* In it6 ordinary sense doer not lnolude 

by oaeea from prrrtltdly l rory et&to 

br an l raml~atlon or lord8 b 

It ioll~~ thea, that the tax due by hvnk Mwaob 

Bonoit, riot bring 6 hbt, too8 sot oome withid tbr purview of 

Mlole L350, 1, P. 0. S., md ronmpue~tl~ rou wool& aot bo 

wthorisoa to wltbhola the lrausnoo or a warrant to him for 

bonrt$ta to wbioh he might be lrgally ontitled l a UI employee 

snder the Texas Unemployment Oompoaaation ht. 

It rta;~ bo that our oourle will oonmtruo ho. 15, Sublivirioa 0, or the Texar VnemplofllPent Ooaponaatioa Aot , ihioh 

HOSES a8 r0ii0*8t 

.’ 
. 

No assignbbwit6 

whioh aro 06 may bemmo dus or payable under this AOt 

shall be valid; an4 suoh rlshts to beneritr shall bo 

Ub 6r0 sot tingled with 

sha 1 bb 6x0 

I T 

other tundr of the rdplrat, 

t iron say rewly whetrower ror the eolleotlon of al debtr rxoopt debts lnourrod ror neoossnrlrs 

furnlshod to suoh lndlrlbual or his spouse or dependents 

during the tlmo Whsn suoh lndirldnel was unemplopa(.. Ro 

waiver or any l remptlon provided for 1x1 this subseotl'on 

shall bs talid.' 

60 as to sword mteotion to a 0lallRaat uador a state of ra6t6 

rush as you sub 9 t, but we prorrr to base our opialoa upon the 

prinalples l nounoob in the deolalonr to whleh wb hato rerarrod. 

We brliwo that our answer to thr rlmt question is 

also 6 8tiri0iOnt answer to the seoond quostiba as to whether 

or not the Stato woald harr thr right to oifsot its judgment 

against the $22.00 olrla or Rank lEdwax- penolt, rho ar an 

smplo~oo her alrraby been rdjudgeb rotltled to tbls sum or 

aonby. 

We think the ~6. of Dallas Joint Stook Land Bank 

or Dallas v. lIlli6 Lsty Ilaprorrarnt Dlstrlot lfo. 3, supa, 1s 

aapla authority to hold la this State that thr ju&gmsat in thlr 

oass oannot br orrsst against the ocmpansatlon sla~mf ths 

eaplo~ss, Rank Bsnoit, ror it 11 srrsot holds that 6 l laim 

against the 8taOo or mniolpallty oaamt be ret orr against 

l tax doasasd, md obviously the oonverse or tbls would br 

squally true. fn the osso of Bibbard v. Oltik, 6 H.3. 155, 

22 Aa. II. 4.42, it was hold under a statute in that stats whloh 

protided that where thorr a rr l tual debts or demnndr b,rheea 

0 piahtitr and th0 nmna~t at the the 0r the oorrrmenooment 

0r the piaintirr*r l otion, 0116 dobt or demand may be set 0tr 

against thb other, that the SWAO rhould not ba oonatrued to 

lnoluds tans l ser ssed by l tomrhlp, the truetoo, is a suit 

against the prlnolpal defendant, 10 that they PIJ be sot off 

against the euma dur rrom tho trustor to tha deiondanti. 
Boreoter, wo bolirro that the brord 166-o 6f 

#$,, 15, Bubsortioa 0, of the T6xrs Unemplofrunt Oomprnratioa 

u$, 16 StifiOi.nt to PrOtOOt this MplOy~ 6~inst w 0161~ 

ior OffSet bY YirtUO er tho pId@WIt iOr taX66 U&16t hi& 

fi will b* Ob**nrd thaO thr laagaaqo ot th16 69Ot1a of the 

6t&ute p?OTideS that "rh6ll br Meapt fro8 my rorrrby wh8t$on6f ror thr oollootlon or 6ll debto.. A oountorolrla or Seten 16 only another moth04 or rmody ot oollooting a debt, md 

~66 it th6 t6x66 wore 66bt6 bi tb6 t6xpqor, whloh they ar, 

rot in the son60 hero Ooluldrrod, we are lnollnod tO the ~18~ 

that tha lU.@UgO Oi the l ta tute QrOOhldO6 6ny aat off or 

~ounterolrlr. 

It tollows froa wbrt wo hare raid rboro that IO arr 

6t the Opi6106 that th6 Corn troller of Pub110 Aroountg 16 not 

authorired to withhold the 4 66~61186 or a w8rruit to this l mP 

loyr. by VfrtUO Of Art1016 43504 aad furthor that this 6lalr 

or UnemploymOnt OOmpen66tiO6 iairLcrano6 oannot bo OrrS@t 6g6166t 

tbo judgment ior t6xos 6&66t him rhllr ho wali an mployar, 

&rr the Tex66 Unoaplopaont Ooep6n6rtlon Aat, 

'lery truly your6 

l